Pathos

Logos

Ethos

Are all important to me. If I had to rank them it would be in that order. Pathos, then Logos, then Ethos. If you can get me to be emotionally invested then you are winning. Don't be afraid to make your gestures big. Project to fill up the room with your voice. Use your diaphragm. Do NOT yell. Do NOT use your throat.

This is essentially my paradigm, came back to double check if I needed to update it. I don't think so. I can't think of anything else. If you can get me to be emotionally invested, you're doing good. If it makes sense, even better. Ethos is also important but not as much as the other too. Be respectful, on time, etc. 

The only thing I can think to add is I love CONTRAST and silence. If you can do that well, you're probably going to win one way or another.

Speech & Debate Experience

- High school (3 years)

- College (2 years)

Mainly debated (IPDA, Parli, etc) but dabbled in speech as well (impromptu, extemp)

Philosophy

Debate: No spreading, give me a good argumentation, try not to beat around the bush with ideas. Make sure to attempt line-by-line refutations as best as possible. I do my best to flow every argument until it confuses me, then I don't flow, because I'm confused. Please try not to do that.

Judging a debate, I consider myself under the tabula rasa philosophy. I'm a clean slate, I will not let biases interfere with my choice, just give me a good show of your speaking skill and organize your thoughts appropriately.

Speech: At the end of the day, I am looking for strong public speaking skill to the best of your ability. That said, I'm not gonna be incredibly harsh if I see the effort being put in. I would like to hear coherence and clarity of thought, and be able to follow what you're saying without getting lost in the weeds.

I was once in the spot you were in, not too long ago. I understand the adrenaline rush, the quickened heartbeat, the nervousness (or maybe excitement) you're feeling. You got this, you are awesome, don't let that inner critic convince you otherwise.

If you're reading this, you're already ahead of the game :^) best of luck!

Misc.

Saying anything exclusionary will make me very sad. Please don't do that, I will not be nice if you do.

Reference ATLA if at all possible, because why not?

General Philosophy

I have competed in debate for two years in Parliamentary and IPDA debate, and coached LD/PF debate for 4 years. I am very much a flow judge - don't make me do work for you. Be sure to explain what your points are, show me how you got to your point, and tell me the impacts clearly. If I do not get the relation to real-world, big picture events, I will not weigh it out for you if the other team does. I do my best to be tab, but if I don't get what I need from either team, I'll intervene to make my decision. I can follow speed, but if it's abusive to the other team and it's brought up and not addressed I will drop you - this is an educational event, treat it as such. Impact hard in final speeches, and try to not bring up new arguments (this is the only place I'll protect flow).

Do's:

Show me your critical thinking skills. Use the game of debate to your advantage if need be: kritiks, framework, whatever. I can follow it if you do it well. Cite warrants. Give roadmaps, structure.

Don't's:

Don't be offensive. If it happens once and it's called out, I'll heavily dock it in speaks. If it happens twice or more, even if it isn't called, I will weigh it heavily on team and probably have a chat with you afterwards. Don't be abusive - if a team is unable to keep up with whatever is happening and you play an advantage off of that even if asked to cool it, I'll dock speaks. Don't run debate heavy stuff if it isn't understood - know your theory, framework, arguments. If you do it wrong and are called on it that'll be an easy decision for me.

Disclaimer that these are just guidelines, not requirements - do what you want to do, it is your round. I encourage fun, learning, and active discourse. If you have questions in round or afterwards I'll always be glad to help out.

Hey there!

My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY

A little context about me:

I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.

My Paradigms:

Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.

THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent

IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.

VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.

JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help

DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.

LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

Hello! I primarily do LD but am familiar with other forms of debate.

You can call me Cookie or Judge, whatever you feel more comfortable with.

Here's a list of my preferences on stuff.

TL;DR: I'm tech > truth. You can read whatever you want as long as you argue it well.

Aff

- make sure to have solvency

- im fine with K affs

Theory

I LOVE THEORY. I believe that theory is absolutely critical to debate. If you think that your opponent is doing something abusive, please don't hesitate to run theory. If you wanna run friv theory, im fine with that too. I will vote on any theory args as long as they make sense/your opponent doesn't defend against them properly.

Ks

I'm not that familiar with a lot of the literature, but I do enjoy a good round with a K. That being said, please be clear on links and ROB, for my sake and yours. Although, I hate limiting the options of debaters, if you read some hyper specific and you have any dependence on my knowledge of the lit, don't count on me

General

Be respectful to your opponent. That being said, I love an oppressive and aggressive CX. Just have some boundaries.

Racism, homophobia, etc. are all absolutely not tolerated

Have fun

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.

Experienced Parli and PoFo debater. Seven years coaching and judging parli/pofo/LD at high school level. Flow judge.

Tabula Rasa judge, I will make a conscious effort not to bring preconceived notions about evidence/analysis into the round. Source credibility matters. Not a fan of spreading, please don't gish galIop your opponents and try to act like it's credible. I'll allow some spreading, especially in LD, but if I can't understand you that only counts against you. I dislike complicated theory arguments, I don't necessarily believe they are appropriate for the high school level 90% of the time, but I will judge them if I have to (but know that I will not like it). I appreciate clear voters in final speeches, tell me why I should vote for you.

PoFo:

I weigh style and argumentation equally. Arguments should be valid and presented clearly. Extend arguments across the flow. If you drop an argument and your opponent notes it, I will consider it dropped by you. I prefer analytics to evidence, but any good analysis has to be based off something. If you raise new arguments in crossfire, please reaffirm them in your speech. Make sure you adhere to your framework, if you set a value I want to see you support it.

LD:

I expect to see value/value criterion that your evidence/analysis can support. Framework debate is important but I will favor the case over it unless the framework is an absolute dealbreaker. While I think theoretical arguments are interesting, I would prefer that the debate remain in the realm of evidence/analysis as much as possible. Plans and counterplans are acceptable, but I'll be harsh if you run a kritik. If you're going to pull something like that at a high school level you better make it immaculate and understandable.

Parli:

I judge heavily on weighing mechanism in Parli rounds when applicable. I do not expect WM in fact-based rounds. I appreciate definitional creativity but I dislike debates that get bogged down at the top of the flow in theoretical worlds. I prefer analysis over evidence, but I understand that some variations of Parli require an emphasis on evidence. Do not spread, I do not believe it belongs in Parli. Try to maintain decorum during POIs, do not abuse the mechanic.


Policy:

I am not an experienced Policy judge. Analysis matters over evidence and I'll try my best.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

I competed in LD debate for 4 years in high school before attending university as an engineering student.

I am not well-versed in progressive debate but will accept meta-debate arguments and rhetoric as long as their purpose is thoroughly explained within round. (Basically, explain why your T-shell or K should be a priority and spread at your own risk.)

If you run a plan or CP, I expect you to stick with your specific advocacy throughout the entire debate. It is not legitimate to abandon your plan halfway through the debate and defend the resolution in a more general sense.

As a judge, I prioritize fairness and clarity in our round. I appreciate a well-articulated philosophical framework, connecting values and criteria meaningfully. Logical, structured arguments, and effective clash are key components I look for. While evidence is important, quality and relevance take precedence over quantity.

I am interested in the educational aspect of debate, valuing rounds that contribute to your growth and understanding of the topic. I am happy to provide feedback or answer questions before/after the round (as long as time permits).

I look forward to a respectful, thoughtful debate. Best of luck to all!

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.