Northwood '22, UCLA '26, she/her

Email chain: alufang88@gmail.com

General

Competed for 4 years in high school and went to the TOC senior year (omg) if that matters. Tech over truth. I honestly don't have many opinions about debate because I don't think about debate that much anymore, so everything below is very subject to change. I think spin is more important than evidence quality (to a reasonable degree), but I will most likely default to reading important evidence after the round if both sides have no evidence comparison or haven't structured the debate so that x piece of evidence doesn't matter. Similarly, I will (obviously) intervene if forced to due to lack of argument resolution by the 2NR/2AR but I will pick the path of least intervention. Make my decision easy for me :)

Disclaimer: I'm a first-year out and clearly still working out my judging preferences/ideologies/etc., and probably unsure of how to determine debates sometimes. If that makes you upset...sorry..........I will work hard to make the debate still educational for you and a reward of the work you've put in!

JH 2022: I haven't judged any rounds on this topic, have no clue what the popular (or niche) arguments are, and don't know any topic-specific terms/acronyms.

Novices: Don't worry about anything on this page; just remember to have fun and be nice to each other :)

DA

I will probably never assign 0% risk to a DA unless it is blatantly wrong (ie. running the 2020 elections da). I think these will be easier to win in front of me if you have a CP paired with it that solves the aff (but obviously not impossible without). I don't LOVE generic links that don't say anything or barely mention the aff and bad ev, but I kind of get it. Still, my threshold for this kind of DA getting ended in cross is pretty low.

CP

I lean neg on condo and will judge kick for you. International fiat, private actor fiat, object fiat counterplans seem illegitimate. All other counterplan theory stuff I feel like I can be easily convinced either way.

K/K affs

I do not understand and do not like pomo!! Same for death good arguments. Please strike me if any of those are your main arguments. Mostly everything else is all equally fine (as in I wasn't a K debater and won't know your lit base that well but can probably at least still grasp it in a 2-hr debate). The way I judge K affs vs. anything else debates is more up in the air than anything else in this paradigm, so I would appreciate clear judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR the most here. I don't like generic "state good/state bad" links/arguments and links of omission.

T

Making this debate feel like a DA debate (with impact work, link work, etc.) is what will make it easiest for me to judge. I don't know how receptive I will be to arguments about what was read at camp, what the topic looks like so far, etc. but seriously go ahead and try anyways.

Case

I really like good case debating, knowing your aff, all of that stuff. You can skip the case overview and go straight to line-by-line in the 2AC :)

Misc.

You can stop prep before sending out the email chain but just keep everything reasonable. Clipping is bad :( Clarity on analytics is super important, please please please slow down so that I can understand all your smart strategic arguments and explain it back in my RFD :)

I won't vote on any arguments about out-of-round actions or that the general framework that allows us to debate is bad (ie. time limits, speech order).

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.

F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Nontraditional Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

Experience: 2 years in Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
NO SPREADING! Will count dropped arguments against you. Signpost your speeches clearly.

Please include voting issues in final focus speeches.

Hello everyone! My name is Deven Gupta, I am going to be a junior next year at University High School in Irvine, CA. I am an experienced public forum debater, but I understand theory and Ks.

Overall, Tech > Truth, meaning I will evaluate arguments that, even if they sound unrealistic, if they are well warranted and have "won" by the end of the round, I will still vote for them.

If you are going too fast or not speaking clearly, I will say "clear". If you are still not speaking clearly after the third time I say "clear" in a speech, I will stop flowing that speech.

Please collapse your main arguments in the back half of the round. I'd prefer if you started doing that by second rebuttal, but it is necessary in summary and final focus.

In second rebuttal, I don't care if you frontline or not. If you don't, make sure you can make up for it later on in the debate round.

Only send me a speech doc if you are speaking over 250 wpm. I will only call for cards if you explicitly tell me as the judge to call for your/your opponent's card(s).

Debate well.

Background

JHU '24

Northwood '20

I've debated 4 years of policy in high school, messed around in parli for a few tournaments my senior year, and have very limited experience with OA and duo

Debated policy freshman and soph year, was flex my junior year and straight-up senior year (I spent a majority of senior year coaching Northwood teams through tournaments rather than competing).

I now do APDA at Hopkins

Jack Howe 2021: This is my first tournament since Cal of 2021. As such, you may nee to go a little slower so my ears have time to adjust because I haven't listened to spreading in 7 months. Please explain everything because I have 0 topic knolwedge!

Jack Howe 2020: I have 0 topic knowledge so please explain acronyms and CJR-specific terms

UNLV 2020: This is only my 2nd tournament on the topic, and I haven't listened to spreading since Jack Howe. You may have to go at 75%-90% speed towards the beginning of the first round just to get my ear acclimated again

Topshelf

I'm fine with anything being read in round just please don't say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, antiblack, xenophobic etc. Your speaks will reflect it and you will lose the round.

Put me on the email chain please! My name is: zarahamid2@gmail.com

tech > truth

Also in general, I believe that disclosure is a good practice.

T

Even though I was the 1N, I never seemed to take T in the 1NR. Please impact out beyond limits and grounds.

K

I've read some K lit but PLEASE do not ASSUME that I've read YOUR lit. Make sure you explain all the terms you're talking about. Don't assume that because I've read it I know what you're talking about. Please CONTEXTUALIZE the K to each aff especially in overviews. Please don't just read Harvard BS's overviews at me.

99% of the time you only need to win the alt or framework, not both.

CP

Please contextualize the CP to the aff and explain how you solve it. It doesn't help for me to hear the same CP blocks that you used in previous rounds during this round. If the CP is really sketch then I am more likely to err aff on theory (ie 50 state fiat).

DA

Despite going mostly K as a junior, I loved going for politics in the 1NR (especially elections disads). Ev quality is important (esp for uniqueness) but spin can overcome poor ev quality (esp on bad ptx weekends).

Aff

I'm a 2A so use that however. Remember to use your aff when you're answering different positions. You didn't use up 8 min of the 1AC for nothing! Also having an o/v probs helps to explain your aff. I don't really care if you read a non-traditional v a traditional aff, just make sure you're talking about the topic. That being said, if you're trying to read a policy aff that's tangentially related to the topic, I'm heavily persuaded by T.

I'm super down for performance debate, but if you do this, please remember your performance in round! I get sad when I watch performance teams under-utilize the performance that they read. Remember the strategic purpose of reading it in the first place

FW

I've been on both sides of this debate. Even though I ran a non-traditional aff, please read this if you're most comfortable with it! I think FW is a great tool to check back against non-traditional affs. I generally think that fairness is an internal link, but if you impact it out right, I'll vote on fairness. Also, I think that FW tricks have become a pretty big norm so use em! That being said, if the aff has some cool FW tricks, I'd love to see em too! You don't NEED a counter-interpretation, but having one would be nice (unless you're just straight up impact-turning FW which I'm also down for).

Speaker Points

0-26.9: Forfeit/Hateful language

27-27.9: Lots to improve in the debate

28-28.5: Probably go 2-4 or 3-3

28.6-28.9: Good debating, expecting you to go 3-3 or 4-2

29-29.5: Excellent debate, expect you in early elims

29.5+: You should win the tournament

****LD Paradigm

I've never done LD so I'm not a fan of friv theory and if there's something specific to LD that's not in policy you'll need to explain it to me

I have debated for over a year and a half respectively for Congressional Debate and Parliamentary Debate at local circuits.

I believe that strong logical arguments triumph above all and you should make sure that your arguments logically connect to why I should choose your side (ex: if you are connecting pharmacies to nuclear war, it better be explained fully). Make sure you focus on weighing your impacts and show me how they are more important and should be recognized.

Tread carefully with spreading as I am personally not a fan, however, I will not hold it against you as long as it is clear and articulate.

Roadmapping is encouraged and will allow me to follow your train of thought better.

Although this is debate remember to stay respectful to your opponents and focus on their case and not them as a person. Do not be overly aggressive, cutting off your opponents politely is acceptable, but do not continuously interrupt them.

If you made it this far, chocolate chip cookies are better than raisin cookies. GL HF!

(P.S. Spreading is overrated)

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

Am a lay judge. Please make sure to speak clearly and give an off-time road map