Hello, my name is Khaled Alameldin. In High School, I went to state twice for parliamentary debate and went to nationals in congress. I also have placed in a multitude of other events such as Public Forum, Exempt, Lincoln Douglas and Thematic Interp.

Pronouns: She/her & they/them

email chain pls: carrjazz@isu.edu

tabs judge. Please do the work for me because I won’t accept just name dropping impacts, you need to do the weighing analysis! I will be able to keep up with flowing no matter the speed, just stay coherent and we’ll be cool. Also just don’t be rude to each other. That makes debate a very toxic place. I don’t mind a little sass and clash. That’s just entertaining tbh.

Background:

I went to a really policy oriented school. I did nothing really but, policy. I don’t count that one time in pf... However, just because I was in a more traditional circuit does not mean I’m a only traditional debater. I did go to some national circuit tournaments and had to adapt. I went to pretty progressive debate camps for three years. I coach policy for local high schools now and I judge while I’m a full time student.

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

congress: I’ve done Congress a couple times and did fairly well. I know how procedures function. Please don’t repeat speeches and say you have a new point when you really don’t. It’ll make me happy. (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I do help some teams currently. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. (:

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged it soooo many times and I know how to keep up.

Parli: I have never competed in parli but, I have seen it and my judging methods below still apply :)

Voting methods:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I love f/w but, if it’s done well. In public forum if you give me a cost ben, then i don’t really care for it tbh. But, in policy and LD I love a good F/W debate.

Theory: I ran theory quite a bit in high school and I will vote on it if it is structured, warranted, and ran properly.

K’s : fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I also love a good K debate. Link of omissions are not something I’ll Vote on. Do the actual link work for me!

CP: i ran lots of CP’s, I also will follow a CP round. However please make your CPs mutually exclusive!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t.

Speed: I’m cool w/ it just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also make sure to sign post !!

Email: chiujiaen@gmail.com

Phone: 310-625-2385

Be nice and explain your arguments well.

Miscellaneous:

If you spread, you are required to send a copy of the doc to your opponent at the start of your speech.

Add me onto the email chain (email above).

Flex prep is allowed.

You are required to time your speeches.

I did PF in high school and I've been coaching primarily PF since I graduated (6 years!). I would consider myself a more traditional judge, but I am familiar with circuit debate.

GENERAL

I'm okay with speed. If you're going to spread, please include me in the email chain. If you're not outright spreading, I'm still cool with speed... I should just be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Fence post what you're attacking or I won't flow it. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.

PF

I vote based on overall flow and on voters offered in FF, unless someone has glaringly lost during the round. But I generally try not to make a solid decision until after the debate is finished.

I love framework debate. However, I know that not every topic lends itself well to a framework and that a lot of debaters don't enjoy framework arguments in PF. That being said, if any framework is offered during the debate, I will likely make my primary voter the framework (unless it is egregiously abusive).

LD

I am significantly less familiar with LD than I am with PF, but I know it well enough. I like to see a lot of debate on values in round. You should carry your value through the round, not just mention it at the top of your case and in your voters.

I'm pretty open to seeing whatever you want to do in LD! Don't feel like you have to do something specific to cater to me. I'll judge whatever you give me.

hello! my name is bella d'ambrosi (she/her).

pls add me on email chain- isabelladambrosi@yahoo.com

im okay with theory just make sure to structure it well!

spread if you're comfortable but won't mark you down if you can't

be respectful and don't use abusive arguments

have fun :)

Please see new paradigm; this account is associated with my old email address.

My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY

All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

I. Background:

I have extensive college debate experience. I competed during my undergraduate years for California State University of Long Beach and Pepperdine University. My experience includes both team and Lincoln-Douglas formats. The Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was the primary format.

While competing in college, I often judged middle and high school speech and debate tournaments. My experience includes both value and policy formats. Upon graduation, I occasionally judged college tournaments over the years as a hired judge. The past 12-months, I have judged multiple tournaments hosted on virtual platforms. The formats include: PF, LD, CX, Parli, and Congress. I also competed in and have judged I.E.'s.

II. Overview:

The following applies to all formats:

1. Speak clearly. I do not like excessive speed, but I can tolerate a moderately fast pace. Please bear in mind that excessive speed often can be muddled due to tech issues and connection speeds in virtual formats.

2. I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Quality and well-sourced evidence often impact my decision.

3. I like a well thought out case that makes sense logically. I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I prefer quality over quantity.

5. Clarify the key issues in rebuttal and explain why your side prevails.

6. I flow. However, if you wish to add me to the evidence chain my email is liebzeit.larry@gmail.com

7. Do not be rude. It is acceptable to be assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but rudeness will be reflected in speaker points.

Email: jacobnamgung@gmail.com

be nice

Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.

My email is anish.ramireddy@gmail.com.

I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.

I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.

Other things:

It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x

Smart analytics can beat carded evidence

A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.

You can insert rehighlighting

Default judgekick

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. No speed! My decision are primarily derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious that you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. No speed, I think it is inherently bad for debate.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimal if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

Background & Experience:

Competitive experience: 4 years competing in many various events, mainly Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum

Judging Experience: 4 years judging debate and speech events

General Philosophy: I like to see clear rebuttals and refutations, and good summaries of contentions. It's okay if the cross-examinations get a little snippy, but don't twist your opponent's words to fit your resolution. Speaker points are important, charisma will be rewarded. Framework is important. Progressive cases or unique frameworks will be weighed equally to traditional debate, and empirical evidence is always important.

Spreading: When in a virtual debate, spreading is almost always a no. If you're in policy, I won't hold it against you, but otherwise please speak clearly.

TLDR

1- K

2- Phil/Theory

3- Policy

Email: osayre@macalester.edu

Pronouns: He/him

General stuff:

I did LD in high school with varying degrees of success. I have been out of debate for a while so please don’t spread at 100% speed. Be clear and slow down on what is most important to your argument. Tech > truth (usually). Don’t be racist/sexist/transphobic. Specifically, I will not vote for arguments premised on racism, sexism, transphobia, etc, and speaks will be dropped if you say exclusionary and hurtful things in the round. As long as everything is clear, I will judge your arguments and will not take into account style, level of experience, manners, etc.

Ks:

This is what I did the most in high school. I read a lot of Baudrillard and lefty stuff, so that’s what I know the best. However, I am willing to accept any sort of K and am familiar with most of the literature. I appreciate clear structure in Ks and if you use the same argument for different parts of the debate that needs to be clear. Because I know this the best, I might have some biases toward it. However, I will not default to K over other args like theory or policy and will be annoyed if you don’t understand your own arguments/don’t know how to run a K. K affs and nontopical affs are fine but I will be annoyed if you aren’t prepared against T.

Phil:

I know a lot about phil and read a lot of it in lower level debate. If you are mixing this with theory you can try to be tricky, but sacrifice clarity at your own risk. If I don’t know exactly how phil and theory intersect and what their effect is on the round by the NR/2AR then that is on you. Otherwise, do what you want.

Theory:

Fine with tricky stuff I just need you to tell me the implications of theory directly by the end of the round. I am a bit biased against disclosure theory, but will vote on it if you win the argument. Theory and Ks can interact on the same level and I don’t presume theory > K. Meta theory > theory. I prefer competing interps and drop the arg. Text > spirit of the interp.

Policy:

Fine with this as well but I have less experience running it. I will probably be the harshest on truth>tech for policy. If you say something that is categorically false and I have to decide the debate on it, I will be annoyed. Please weigh impacts. If you don’t you will probably lose.

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

My name is Becca Walker, I am a former high school debate competitor who also has extensive professional public speaking experience in various corporate roles. Needless to say, I have an enduring passion for public speaking! My personal opinions and beliefs do not find their way into the rounds that I evaluate. I recognize that, in my capacity as a judge, it is my duty to act in an objective manner, and to fairly and accurately judge the debate or speech itself, and not the issues being spoken about. I love to offer meaningful and actionable feedback because I believe it is necessary for growth and development. Judging speech and debate rounds is something that I love to do and, while I have a warm, easygoing personality, I take the position of judge seriously. My passion for public speaking has been with me since my own high school debate career, and it has followed me into my professional career. I believe that speech and debate can be a life changing experience for people, both young and old, just as it was a game changer for me. I look forward to contributing to the development of that passion within the competitors of today in my capacity as a judge!

Former LD debater. Competed in local lay and national circuits. Last competed in 2016 at NSDA Nats and LD ToC. Familiar with most LD styles (although I'm already getting old somehow...?). Prefer lay style but obviously I accept policy style args and a little speed.

Pretty much open to everything if you can argue it well. I don't prefer theory but if you think it's a serious enough violation go for it. Big fan of topicality if it's warranted.

If you want high speaks, I love when fast technical debaters go super slow to highlight main points - it shows a fluency with knowing how human beings are actually convinced while showing a mastery of debate technicals.

Above average speed is fine but since I only judge online these days (and its been half a decade since I competed) it's probably best to slow it down a bit. Okay with you talking fast to get through cards just slow down for tags / warrants / authors.

Overall, I strongly prefer to be convinced like a human being rather than hear you count up won / lost arguments. A single, strong, cohesive argument that is well defended is more persuasive to me than a mess of contentions. That mess is often inevitable - your job is to clarify that mess to me!

I promise to flow and give you the respect you deserve as competitors. The competition is about you developing your skills as debater so I will be honest with you and value your time.

add me to the email chain: jzhen13@ilstu.edu

pronouns: she/her/hers/judge/you

Background:

I'm currently a graduate student at Illinois State University where I am pursuing a masters in communication studies. I debated public forum in high school and competed in policy debate at California State University, Fullerton. I earned my bachelors degree in political science and human communications with an emphasis in argumentation and persuasion.

I have not judged or competitively debated in a while. Therefore, I would prefer if everyone could speak at a reasonable pace. Clarity and being able to articulate your arguments clearly is important to me.

PF Paradigm

-Explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts

-Your speech should be building off each other. If you want to bring something up in the final focus, make sure it's in the summary

-I am fine with speed but make sure to speak with clarity. I need to be able to hear the cards and warrants

-I dont flow cx

LD/Policy Paradigm

AFFs: I like traditional and nontraditional AFFs. However, I do prefer traditional style of debate. These are my favorite to judge.

I don't like phil. I'm not the best in evaluating them. However, if you do read them in front of me, I will do my best in evaluating it.

Even though I prefer traditional debate, I still like any type of argument you run! It doesn't matter if it's straight up policy, K, CP, FW, etc. I am familiar with these arguments and have read these before. However, I would rather you err on the side of over-explanation. Make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain them to me. Do not just read cards and expect that to be sufficient, I want you to go further than that. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote on. I've voted on extinction good before, just give me a good reason to do so.

-Impact calculus is important to me. I want you to weigh the impacts and not just read them. If you do not articulate your impacts to me, then why does your argument even matter? This is what I usually judge off of.

-Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear. However, since it is now online, I would rather you speak a bit slower. I have judged a couple tournaments online and there are times when the speech is unclear due to technological problems. I need to be able to hear the words coming out of your mouth!

-I don't permit clipping cards. That is unfair and you will lose and get a 0 for your speaker points.

-Don't expect me to do the work for you because I won't. Tell me why you deserve the ballot.

Tech > Truth

Please dont be racist, sexist, homophobic!! Dont be mean in the round. If you do any of these things, your speaker points will be really low.

-If you have any questions or comments about my RFD you can email at jzhen13@ilstu.edu