I am a parent judge, and I have primarily judged the Lincoln Douglas Debate and a few Speech events- but my real expertise is in the Congressional Debate. Don't be fooled that I'm a parent- that doesn't mean I'm easily persuaded. I have experience working in public policy, government, and political fields, so I like hearing the community impacts of a specific piece of legislation.

This isn't required, but in Congressional Debate, if the P.O. can fully state the name of a bill in the legislation docket before we move on to debating legislation, I would greatly appreciate it :)

I appreciate being passionate in debate, but please don't be rude to your opponents and maintain a fair and equitable game in debate.

Make sure you have evenly paced speaking and can offer good warrants and impacts for your claims, otherwise, I will likely prefer you less. I also prefer consistency with your arguments, so keep up with that- additionally, please make sure you actually know the context of the data you bring up in the debate and that you can explain your evidence well to other Senators in the chamber. Not everything that happens in the world and is analyzed is simply a point to further your argument- these are real-life events and implications that actually affect people. Bigotry is a big turn-away for me- please don't base your arguments on racist or misogynistic ideas.

Good luck to all! I trust that you are all well-versed competitors acting in good faith, and I have enjoyed seeing various Speech & Debaters grow over the years :)

I am a traditional parent lay judge (run progressive debate at your own risk)

What I Care About

- Please Don't Spread
- Don't be Rude
- Truth >> Tech
- Ensure you add evidence
- CrossX is Important but Not Part of the Flow
- Weigh Your Arguments vs Your Opponents (and make sure it's consistent with your values)
- Extend Your Arguments
- Offense > Defense

email: gautag@gmail.com

I am a senior in college studying engineering. I debated PF on the regional and national circuits back in high school.

My process for voting is as follows:

1. What's the most important issue/value in the round
2. Who holds the strongest link into that

Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

I do not favor spreading; keep a reasonable pace to your arguments.

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Background

I did LD in Colorado for four years and befriended several policy debaters along the way, so I'm willing to listen to any argument regardless of how you package it. That being said, remember that at the end of the day, LD is a value-based debate.

Substance

You're most likely to convince me by linking arguments to framework - be explicit about your claims and how they relate to the value debate. I enjoy hearing unique arguments if you make a convincing link to the resolution, so feel free to run critical theory and the like, just tell me how it's relevant and why I should care. I'm really not a fan of anything gimmicky and have little patience for debates about debate unless I think there's legitimate abuse going on. Overall, as with many things in life, quality > quantity.

Style

I'm fine with speed and any type of argument as long as your opponent understands you on both counts. I appreciate clear roadmaps & signposting, and the cleaner you are on the flow, the better. Be respectful and enjoy each round - debate is best, in my opinion, when we don't take ourselves too seriously :)

Hi! I’m Gautam.

Carroll Sr. HS, TX ’19

Duke University ’23

Email - gautamiyer28@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please)

Background - debated 3 years for Carroll Senior High in Southlake, TX, qualified to TFA state, NSDA nats, and TOC my senior year. Debated on both local and national circuits so familiar with traditional debate too.

General - I’m fine with whatever you want to run as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. I mostly read LARP/policy style arguments and some theory, so I'll probably be best at evaluating those things. I'll probably be worst at evaluating tricks (ie burden affs with 4-minute underviews) so if you're reading tricky stuff take a second to explain the tricks and their implications. I'll vote for those arguments, but I'll have a lower threshold for what counts as a response. Additionally, I'm not that familiar with some critical literature (ie Bataille or Heidegger), so if you're reading stuff like that it would be helpful to spend more time explaining your position.

Defaults - I default to comparative worlds, reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs, presuming aff, permissibility flows aff. I doubt I’ll ever have to use most of these.

Miscellaneous stuff -

• As a debater I was atrocious at permissibility, skep, truth testing in general, burdens, etc so if you want to read those args please explain them thoroughly
• I will vote on frivolous theory but will be more easily convinced by weaker answers or reasonability to things like formal clothes theory
• I won’t drop speaks regardless of what arg you read unless it’s offensive
• Good case debate is fun and will probably get you good speaks
• Disclosure is important and I will gladly vote on a disclosure shell
• Please send screenshots at the end of the round if you go for disclosure
• Compiling the doc is prep but emailing it, etc. is not
• I won’t flow CX unless asked

My name is Melissa Matson, and I am a lay judge.

NO SPREADING! If you feel the need to speak so quickly that no one else in the round can understand, you need to shorten your case and/or speech. Not only is it unfair to your opponent, but I will likely miss many of your arguments. This means I cannot flow them or consider them in my decision. Fast conversational speed is generally acceptable.

I am most familiar with traditional debate and prefer attempts to engage directly with the resolution. If you decide to go another route, please explain it EXTREMELY WELL so I don't get lost.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Appropriate language and sportsmanship are expected.

LD specific: I enjoy hearing diverse frameworks. If you use a less common value (i.e. something other than morality, justice, etc.) or VC and support it well, I am inclined to vote in your favor and award higher speaker points.

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

I competed in Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in New Mexico, which is a fairly traditional circuit. I've had experience with more progressive debate both through my participation with SWSDI and generally being up to date with CX strategy.

Debate Paradigms
I believe LD is, at its core, a value-driven debate, so I hold the framework debate quite highly in my consideration. This doesn't mean I want you to spend half of the 1AR/NC on the framework debate. I really don't care whether you have a debate or drop your framework and choose to run with your opponents -- I do, however, need your arguments to uphold your value. When I make my ultimate decision on the round, I will weigh each of the major arguments on the winning value. Make this easy for me by making the link from your impacts to the value clear. If I don't think it's important on the value, I don't really care who wins that argument.

Progressive/Traditional Debate
You're free to talk as fast as you want. I'll yell "clear" if you need to slow down and/or annunciate better. You should also pay attention to my facial expressions -- you'll know if you're talking too quickly.
I've run Ks, Ts, and theory shells before, but it's been four years. You're free to run them, just make sure 1) they're relevant and necessary to the round (aka explicitly state your impacts), and 2) you explain everything quite clearly.
I've been steeped in a lot of critical theory throughout my education, so there's a pretty high chance I'll know what you're talking about if you run some critical theory.

General Paradigms
Don't be rude.
Please, for the love of God, signpost. Clean flow = happy judge
Again, pay attention to my facial expressions. I'm pretty good about emoting whether or not I buy your argument -- and if I don't, it's probably in your best interest to slow down/explain your logic and evidence more clearly.
I'm fine with flex prep as long as you also have an actual substantial 3 minutes of CX. Put it this way -- CX can bleed into prep, prep cannot bleed into CX.
I drop my pen once time ends. You're free to keep talking, but nothing's making it onto the flow. Actually, strike that. Stop talking once time ends.
I care deeply about evidence in rounds -- please engage the actual statistics and articles your opponent's using, even if it's just "prefer my card because _____." I will ask for any cards I might need to look at for clarification, but if you don't argue it, I can't vote on it. I'll just end up writing my notes about the evidence and not vote on that card -- but don't make me do that.