Hi!! I did pf for 4 years.

Just do comparative weighing and you’ll win my ballot. I don’t really like theory/Ks. Have fun and be nice! :))

Hello!

My name is Cassidy, my pronouns are she/they, I identify as a queer woman, I'm a senior and the captain of parli at Valencia High School. I've been debating at the varsity level for three years and attended the TOC a couple of years ago.

- I am open to entertaining all types of arguments as long as they are clear as day, you weigh your impacts and tell me why I should vote for you.

- I enjoy theory arguments as long as they are explained in a very organized fashion, at the end of the day substance matters most

- I will not make connections for you and will only vote based on what you and your partner actually say

- I am okay with fast speaking so long as you make it known that you will be speaking quickly and allow your opponents a mechanism to let you know that they can't understand you

- Keep in mind that debate is an academic exercise but the topics we are debating are real-world issues that affect real people, be respectful of those affected by each res. Please refrain from weaponizing suffering to win a ballot

- Please be kind! Respect pronouns! I love a clean friendly debate more than anything!

Finally, I will give you extra speaker points if you make me laugh, tell me a joke, or make a really good pun!

Good luck I can't wait to meet you:)

Parliamentary Debate

As a student at Friends Seminary, I debated with our nascent parliamentary debate team for three years. Finding both community and stimulation in our school's team, I was proud to represent them at tournaments around New York City in the NYPDL. I began judging as my senior year came to a close and have continued to judge virtually for the past year.

I'm always happy to answer questions before and after rounds, and I take feedback very seriously. In terms of argumentation, I appreciate creativity, historical accuracy, and ties to current events.

I find parliamentary debate rounds that get overly caught up on definitions to be discouraging: please don't let that monopolize the entire clash.

When it comes to Points of Information, I do not have a strong preference on how they are conducted, as long as everyone debating is in agreement. Before each round starts, I like to standardize how they will be conducted (whether that simply be unmuting or raising a hand). I understand that different people have different relationships with and access to technology, and won't hold any technological mishaps against the debater. Another note about POIs: please don't go back and forth.

I don't have strict rules about off-time roadmaps, but I do feel that they are overwhelmingly unnecessary. If you feel the need to present one, you may, but definitely don't feel pressured to do so. Finally, I always time speeches but prefer not to interrupt speakers for going overtime. Please be mindful of your time so the tournament can run smoothly.

Hey there!

I've done parli for around 4 years now, and am fairly experienced. I'll ask for the standard stuff: signpost well, don't drop arguments, create clash, and have an educational debate. I don't weigh evidence any more strongly than logical reasoning on the principle that parli is good specifically because it forces debaters to make arguments without evidence - any kind of warrant is good as long as the logic is sound. I'll take theory arguments, but avoid kritiks.

Have a good round!

I am a parent judge with two years experience. Please speak at a normal pace. It is helpful when warranting is supported with evidence. I find signposting to be helpful as well. Weighing is important in helping me make my decision for who won the round.

I am new to judging, please speak clearly and don't speak too fast.

I'm a student judge who has done both a great deal of Parliamentary and Public forum debate. This means if you pull something tech I won't be annoyed and will be able to follow what you are doing. That being said, I think that tech maneuvers are almost never necessary to win a round. Please weigh and signpost in your speeches. Please don't do off time roadmaps unless you are going to pull something super ridiculous. Please be decorus to each other and don't spread.

I'm a senior at Trinity High School in New York City, and this is my fourth year competing in and judging Parliamentary Debate.

As a judge, I encourage debaters to be as organized and clear as possible. Please sign post and guide me through the flow -- explicitly tell me what your contentions, warrants, and impacts are. I'm only writing what you say. Final two speeches should be mostly weighing - tell me what you believe the major clashes are in the round. Tell me why you win under your framework as well as your opponent's.

I am a parent judge with relatively little judging experience. That said, I've taught speech, studied philosophy, and worked for many years as a researcher of public benefits programs. I appreciate well-reasoned, and logically presented arguments that are grounded in research. I also appreciate a clear and straightforward presentation: sign-posting of your arguments, using plenty of examples, and explaining any debate terminology that you might use. Overall, please be kind to one another and focus on making the best case for your position and against your opponents'.

Please add me to the email chain for all speeches/ev, and email with any questions: hilary.griggs@yale.edu

For KSHSAA state- PLEASE do not go over time. I have had to interrupt debaters in every round I have judged about going over time in CX and in speeches and it is frustrating :)

Background:

I debated policy all through high school in KS and now coach parli to high schoolers in a UDL.

Speed:

I’m comfortable with whatever, as long as you signpost and are clear with tag lines, plans, and other particularly important bits (CP texts, theory, perms, etc.). I think that effective debate can happen at any speed, but don’t push it.

General:

I spent a lot of time in high school being annoyed by my judges. I don’t want to be one of those judges, and so I keep my paradigm short. I think that, at its core, debate is about persuasion and cleverness, and I am open to anything from both teams. More than anything, I value clarity, good argumentation, and impact turns.

Other fun facts (for my policy debaters):

T:

I will vote on T. I agree with most standard T rules like: run interpretation, violation, standards, voters; T is not a reverse voting issue, it is a priori, etc. But, again, I need aff/neg to make these args in-round.

DA’s:

Please, for the love of god, run your DA’s right. UQ, link, internal link, impact. I genuinely do not care if your DA is the most generic thing alive; if you have a good link card, I’m in. Argue that.

CP’s:

I love counterplans. I think they are a great way to be creative in a round and really push the aff, but they do need to meet the minimum requirements of mutual exclusivity, net benefit, etc. I think debating against a CP can be fun for the aff, too… perm do both.

K’s:

If you run a K or a K aff in the Kansas open circuit, you already get points for bravery. I’ve read my fair share of theory, and I think that k debates can be really interesting and productive. That said, if you run a K, I expect you to know your lit and to argue it effectively. I am not inherently impressed by K args, so it’s entirely up to you whether or not running a K is effective. That being said, framework is incredibly important in this case. A generic policy aff will beat the world’s most beautiful Cap K if they win on framework.

Filling out a paradigm comes as a mixed feeling to me. Public speakers should be ready to perform to the broader public. My advice is that you have to balance appealing to the masses while also coming off as unique. Because that is so easy that is why... oh wait. Ya. To be fair, what I dislike more than awkward interps, debaters who read scripts late in the round and speakers who never emote is judges who have no idea what they are doing. Unless it is a silent round, you should get feedback that is grounded in reality with helpful advice. Regardless, the ballot should be constructive.

If I am judging a speech event, the best measurement for me is how much I would want to see you speak again. If it was such a compelling speech that I would be excited to see your name on a list again, you got a great score. My judging of speech and interpretation events goes back longer than any high school student has been alive. I have hosted such tournaments as well, most recently, WIDPSC 2021.

For debate reference, I debated policy debate back in the Jurassic period when people did not have master circular breathing. I have coached Public Forum debate since 2003 and parliamentary debate since 2004--have coached the Korean WSDC team for several years and several teams who have won tournaments domestically and overseas. I like both WSDC and AP, but specifically prefer impromptu parliamentaries since they allow me to see what debaters can do, not what their coaches can do or what debate briefs they can afford. Also, my love of parliamentary debate is not limited to WSDC or AP, as I think BP requires even more flexibility.

If I am judging a debate, I want to see engagement. Teams that keep repeating why they are right at the expense of engaging with their opponent's characterization are not engaging at all. If I wanted to hear multiple speakers repeat themselves I would watch spin rooms. Also, if you want to avoid engaging, try a speaking event instead of debate. I enjoy aggressive debates, but not ad hominem attacks.

Debate takeaways:

3 likes: exclusivity, taking your opponent at their best, prioritization

3 dislikes: lack of strategy (especially repetitiveness), ignorance, being bored

Bonus: focus, funny, fresh

School affiliations - none

Hired - yes (work with the USA debate program)

Graduated from Mira Loma High School in California recently.

Currently enrolled in college -- Columbia University

Have competed in APDA in college.

This is my first year of judging/coaching. I have one year of experience judging.

I occasionally judge WS Debate.

I have not judged any other format this year.

I have not chaired a WS round before but I understand it involves calling up the speakers, running the round logistically, and delivering an OA (if within the majority).

I would describe WS Debate as a parliamentary format of debate that is very focused on logical warranting.

I usually flow on my computer while judging.

I don't go into any round presuming the principle or practical is more important. It's up to the debaters to do the weigh up.

I evaluate strategy by looking at how arguments are developed down the bench, how consistent each team is with their argumentation, and the narrative each team is able to advance throughout the round.

I'm generally ok with speed but if the speaker is going fast enough that it's no longer accessible to their opponents, I will doc style.

Competing claims will be evaluated off of warranting and weighing. Walk me through the logical links and weigh between claims if you think I am not convinced.

Prop gets to set model as long as it's reasonable. If there's a model quibble, I don't want it to encompass the entire debate, but I will evaluate based off of what the debaters tell me and what I believe is aligned with the spirit of the motion.

Countermodels should be mutually exclusive or else they're a waste of time -- I'm open to reminders at the top of the 1 though ie. remember we can still utilize current welfare infrastructure or something along those lines.

Contact info -- email me at jh4338@columbia.edu

Jennifer Gremmel Hunt Paradigm

Background:

Coach, Academy at Little River (2010-present)

Coach, Immaculate High School (2013-present)

J.D., B.F.A. (double major: dance & politics)

I fell into coaching when a colleague decided that, given my legal background, I was well-equipped to teach debate. You & I know better. I learn from my students every day. I’ve judged the Yale Invitational (3) and Penn Liberty Bell Classic (1), in addition to many local extemporaneous policy hybrid tournaments.

Yes, of course, I flow. Speed (not spread) is ok so long as articulation is clear and arguments are organized and signposted/tagged. Don’t use speed as a crutch or to impress. Like most, I try to be tabula rasa: I leave personal biases at the door, and I don’t extend arguments for you. But watch out, I don’t vote exclusively on the flow. The entire argument is paramount for me. I don’t de facto award the win to quantity over quality, nor will I buy the utterly ridiculous

I come to see debate. To that end, I want to see clash. Topicality should (and must) be defended if there is an issue. Theory and Kritiks, meh. If you run something along those lines, be certain it is the best path and explain it, as you are implicitly convincing me to move away from the debate with you. 

Impacts: I do like to hear real, reasonable impacts. Weighing: Crystallize and convince me. Give me something to vote.

Zero tolerance for shouting and rudeness, though to quote another judge, “sarcasm warms the heart.” 

As an educator, I want to hear a debate about the resolution. I want to experience your critical thinking and reasoning skills through your outstanding oratory skills. I’m reasonably intelligent, but I’m not in your head. Educate me.

any pronouns || yjdj314@gmail.com

I can flow. If you're too fast, I will say "slow" two times before I stop flowing.

I think arguments should be warranted and connected to the topic. From there, it's up to you.

Coming from an East Coast parli background, I don't have a lot of respect for evidence, especially unwarranted; I'd rather hear you make your own arguments than rely on Starr 15 to do the logic for you.

I am dumb. I do not know what words mean. Please explain to me what all of your words mean and we'll all have a much better time.

I'm a typical flow judge/high school debater. Make sure to signpost, and try not to spread. I don't like theory, so don't run it unless it's absolutely necessary. For PF - make sure that you explain your evidence and tell me why it matters. Warrant!

Be funny, but don't be mean. Ask me before the round if you have any questions!

If you need to contact me for any reason: Ariel.kirman22@trinityschoolnyc.org

Overview:

I used to do debate from my sophomore to junior years in Stuyvesant High School and have volunteered to debate for tournaments the Stuyvesant Parliamentary Debate team participated in since my senior year. I don’t really participate in debate tournaments in NYU but I enjoy some fun math and music and random conversations from time to time!

Paradigm:

My style is really simple: if I think a side argues a case with stronger arguments, then that will be the winning side. That said, what do I mean?

Firstly, I try to judge as unbiased as I can. I try to ignore my personal views and believe that whatever is said in a round stays in the round. Of course I like warranting and impacting but I think that weighing is probably the most important factor for me.

Also, try to make your arguments simple. Pretend I’m a five year old who doesn’t know anything about the topic and convince that naive child that your side’s arguments are better.

That said, remember, you are competing at debate tournaments. Competing does not dictate the course of your life. If you win, congratulations but if you lose, just learn from your mistakes and move on. Not worth getting depressed over a simple round, or even a tournament, because you’ll have plenty of other chances in life to get what you want.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I did LD for four years at Lexington High School, graduating in 2020. My email is 0evanli0@gmail.com

I'm willing to vote on any argument I understand excluding ones that are offensive. I was most familiar with theory and policy arguments as a debater, but I try to be as open minded as possible when judging. Please try to be clear and slower than usual as I have not judged in a while.

I don't disclose speaks. I give speaks based on argument quality, strategy, efficiency, and clarity.

Hi!

I started competing in Arkansas my sophomore year before competing nationally during my junior year of high school, and am now a first-year at Yale University. I placed 3rd at this tournament last year and am super excited to be involved in judging this time around. I’ll throw out some particular preferences I have below in case it helps — in the round I judge and (hopefully) others as well!

1. Your evidence is of paramount importance. You are competing against the best ~150 debaters in the country; all of you are amazing speakers with excellent argumentation. It is far more likely that you wow me with impeccable evidence than with having slightly better style/rhetoric than the other great speakers in the room. I think this is even more pertinent in outrounds.

1. Cite journal articles, think tanks, and respected publications. If your article is from a random source, try to qualify/justify the source or the article — if it can’t be qualified, think about if it should really be worthy of being flowed in the round.

2. Do not cite by saying “According to Harvard Law School in 2017,” or even by saying “According to the Washington Post.” The former method became increasingly common last year for whatever reason, and it makes the source unsearchable. If it is a law review article, say that, and say the author; if it is a press release, say that. The latter issue seems much more common and can be fixed with just an author and date.

3. If your evidence is exaggerated, I (and your other judges) will probably take note — I’ll definitely be willing to look up a source, just like I did when I was in the round as a debater, if something seems particularly off.

4. How you use your evidence is just as important. Always weigh, especially in a later speech, and emphasize why your evidence is so effective given the flow of the round. But you all know this by now — you're here!

2. Presentation — energy, fluency, rhetoric, and style — is essential. Be compelling and be passionate, and show us why we should care! Have solid intros, have eye contact, vary your tone/inflection.

3. Be kind. I doubt this happens, but if you are rude — ad hominem attacks, insults, disrespectful comments, etc. — you will be dropped. Do not, however, be afraid to be aggressive; we know the difference.

4. Refutations are the backbone of this event. But do not make the mistake of thinking a one-liner without a source is an effective rebuttal of another speaker (unless they made a ridiculous claim that you can easily reject). If someone cites compelling evidence from a law review article / respected paper, and you try to spend five/ten seconds quickly (without sources) “rebutting” this argument, it is extremely likely you have not rebutted it.

5. Similarly, in crystallization speeches, do not try to go through every opposing argument and throw out one-liners in response to them. This is extremely common but bad for debate. Thematically assess what is and is not important in that given round and use compelling arguments/evidence to show why, on those larger points, your side won and the other lost.

6. Don’t rehash. I know it is tempting; I know it is easy. It comes with a cost. If your sources have all been used and you cannot find good evidence in time, then weigh other arguments / refute or find new arguments within your evidence.

If you have any questions, or for any judging needs, feel free to reach out at alex.martin@yale.edu. Also, I will be flowing your speeches and making notes; if you want to see my flow or my notes on you, then please just shoot me an email. If you are from a smaller school, or do not have a program where you are receiving much support for this, or just want any advice on debate, I would love to help with any free time I have this year or next.

email: abhiram.masam@gmail.com

standard tech judge. generally look to weighing first, so please weigh and make my decision as simple and easy as possible. signpost so I can follow you pls! wont evaluate theory at all. defense is only sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline. any offensive behavior is rewarded with an L 20, and if the round is made unsafe the round ends there and I'll respond appropriately to the situation at hand. please preflow before the round and please do not argue any debater math in front of me. tysm!

•  
• special things for nsd:

• running theory/prog on lambda and kappa kids will result in an L 20
• the threshold for responses to progressive debate is super low if you read prog on a team that is very very clearly unprepared to respond
• no need to shake my hand! seriously all good! ily all
• do not read gentrification good in front of me, it will be rewarded with an L 25! You can ask me questions about why I feel this way if you want but j don't read it. 

Conflicts: Trinity School

I have been a Parliamentary debater since high school I am heavily involved in public speaking. I want to see a clear frame from the start (for both sides) and see a strong impact on every contention. Always warrant and warrant well. I really need the summary speeches to show me where the clash is in the round and tell me why I'm siding with your team under the frame. Everything should be extremely well signposted, I will write something if I know what it is responding to so please be clear in your arguments.

Some things that I will do (credit to Ryan Lafferty):

“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech

If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of

If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

Be logical. Be thorough. Be respectful.

Have fun!

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

Hi, my name is Gopal Nadiga. I did all types of debate (ld, pf, cx, worlds) through high school. Los Alamos High '20.

Some General comments:

Because this is online, I would prefer slowing down the speed in case I missed something or it's harder to understand overall. A comfortable speaking tempo should be good.

Please include me on the email chain: gsnadiga@gmail.com

Framing is most important to me. Give me the lens through which I am going to judge the round don't expect me to bring it.

For evidence debate, you have to attack the warrants of the card if you want to show that your evidence is better. Be specific. Don't make general arguments about how more recent cards are better.

Especially in novice and JV, I much prefer a traditional case debate over K debate. If you are running K make sure you know what you are doing and structure it well. Again framing is most important.

Use CX well but remember that you need to bring up any big points made in CX into the round if you want it to count.

Use all speech time, CX time, and prep time effectively for max speaker points.

I am a relatively new judge and have judged one tourney which was for parliamentary debate. When presenting warrants explain thoroughly. I do not like to see spreading but would appreciate it if you are clear and concise in your speech. I like to see weighing in debate and would love to see pmt in the final speeches as well as a two world analysis. Good luck!

Hello speakers, my name is Dimple. My experience with speech/debate began in 2020. I have remained active in the community as a speech and debate judge since then.

I'd like to share my judging style. I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible, if not please define the terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are spreading, that means I am not writing it down.

I do not like speaker's talking over each other during cross-examination. Please be respectful to your opponent. The winner of the round will be the speaker who made the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest. Also, please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.

Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue. All in all, I am excited to meet you all. I study delivery, as critical thinking is necessary throughout the round. Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

Hi! I'm Keerthana Routhu and I'm a fourth year studying Computer Science and Computational Math at UC Santa Cruz. I went to Irvington High School and have competed in a couple of Parliamentary Debates. When speaking, speed is fine, just make sure that it is reasonable enough for your opponents and me to understand your arguments. I like seeing roadmaps (off-time is okay), evidence, and well-structured impacts. Finally, please be polite and respectful to everyone involved in making these debate tournaments possible. Good luck!

I'm a junior at Columbia University and have run tournaments for the Columbia Debate Society! I did not do debate in high school and thus am not too familiar with LD or PF—though I've judged PF before. However, for the past three years, I've been competing and judging in college debate (American Parliamentary).

As for debating preferences...I love sign-posting and extensive weighing/warranting for your weighing!

Things I love a lot less: spreading, over-emphasis on evidence/"cards," under-emphasis of warranting and logical reasoning, "off-time" roadmaps. But on the whole, I'm pretty accommodating of different debating styles.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!

Hi, my name is Lorenz and I was a former national circuit PF and parliamentary debater at Stuyvesant HS in NYC. Don't be afraid to be technical as I should be able to follow. That said, I am not the biggest fan of speaking fast and would prefer if you avoided theory and debate jargon. PF and parli aren't the right formats for it.

I reward efforts to debate as if you're talking to someone in the real world. I also prefer arguments grounded in reality though I will still flow outlandish arguments; you will just have to work harder to make me believe in their impact at the of the round. Other than that, please be nice to each other, please signpost, and please make weighing a priority especially in the final speeches. Have fun!

update for hs parli:

I debated nat circuit LD in HS so I'm familiar with progressive arguments, but I never debated HS parli. I've judged a few parli rounds and have an understanding of the general structure, but I probably don't know the intricacies of the event.

updated for Columbia:

I debated for Millburn HS (graduated in 2020) and was pretty involved in high school circuit LD, attending TOC my junior year. However, I haven't judged or coached since January 2021, and I'm particularly not used to online debate, so I don't have a great idea of the norms of the community (and certainly not the topic).

pref wise:

- mostly read policy-style arguments and theory, but I'm open to all arguments that are 1] warranted and 2] not abhorrent, and I'm most impressed by debaters who engage in their opponents' arguments and know their lit base

- that being said, in order of how comfortable I am evaluating debates (not preference judging):

theory > larp = t > phil = tricks > k

she/her

I did 4 years of traditional LD in North Dakota and 2 years of APDA at Columbia. Consider me an expert in traditional debate and philosophy and as having a basic working knowledge of circuit debate.

In general, don’t do anything harmful, I will tank your speaks and vote you down. For traditional LD debates, the winner’s offense links to the winning criterion and outweighs their opponent’s offense that links. In circuit debates, I still want some sort of framework/weighing that I can use to evaluate impacts, and I will plug those impacts in accordingly. This can be basically anything, as long as it’s not harmful.

As I become less and less involved with debate, I become less interested in the technical side. I will still evaluate the round based purely on the arguments made, and will try not to intervene in any but the most egregious of cases. Nevertheless, I question the notion that we can or should be a tabula rasa in or out of debate.

In terms of speed, I’m comfortable with anything ~<200, more than that and you should send a doc.

If you are interested in my personal biases, know that I'm generally more sympathetic to ideas that fall under the "identity politics" umbrella. In high school, I ran a lot of Kant so I really like to see deontological arguments done well. I will of course do everything possible to remain impartial in spite of these biases, but they are there.