**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

email is azqpeng@gmail.com, he/him/his.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD stuff

I haven't judged many rounds. I've seen a decent amount of debates, but they are almost entirely "circuit"/"progressive" rounds.

I don't understand the difference between values and value criterion are, and I don't care to find out either. I find the idea of universalizable valuations and criteria to be pretty Eurocentric and worse, extraordinarily boring. I prioritize tech over truth, unless the "tech" is racist, sexist, antiqueer, or otherwise problematic

K=LARP>Theory>Phil>Tricks. I will listen to anything - that ranking is more based on my familiarity with arguments rather than any preference, I find skep and paradoxes to be interesting I just am saddened to say I'm not exactly an expert.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

novices only need to read top level and general

top level

- I am a "flex" debater leaning heavier on the K side meaning planless is fine, framework is fine, do whatever you want and read whatever you want as long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc. and you do line-by-line. fairness is probably an impact but can be convinced otherwise, claim warrant impact, slow down online. good luck!

general

- I try to assign speaker points independently from wins/losses, don't take them too seriously. I try to average a 28.5 and most rounds I don't deviate more than 28.5+-0.5 for most speakers, inflating/deflating depending on which division you're in (novice vs JV). If you're outside that range, congratulations (or sorry)!!

- an argument is a claim warrant and an impact - "they dropped [xyz]" is a claim that requires warrants and impacts. This also means if you respond to an argument x with warrantless claim y, argument x is considered dropped.

- Probably doesn't matter for most novices but focus on your clarity and don't go over 250wpm. Online debate is tough and I base my decision off of what I've written on my flow. I'll say clear a few times then stop.

- Impact calculus/framing should be in most 2NR/2ARs even if a team is significantly farther ahead. In novice/JV debate this is especially true for topicality and framework (policy v k and kaff v policy).

- Open/Tag team cross-x is fine (but you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage if neither of you are prepping during 2AC/2NC CX)

- Time your own prep and speeches. I won't be overly strict about prep, but don't be mean and steal prep.

- I kind of hate when novices read stuff like ASPEC and paradoxes and go 10 off. I also kind of love it since that's what I did as a novice. Take that how you will.

- I am usually pretty expressive sometimes to a fault (but if I'm not, I'm probably just tired so don't worry)

- Cameras on unless you have a legitimate reason not to (don't need to tell me just honor code ig)

- sign post! Sign post!! SIGN POST!!!

policy v K

- I like. That being said, I've judged 5(?) novice/JV K rounds this year and voted against the K every single time, though a decent number of those rounds were won because the neg kept dropping tko arguments... so take that how you will. I probably know your K but you should explain it anyways.

- (especially for lex novices) If you go for the K, I want to see framework being written into my rfd. For lex novices, that should be obvious if you paid attention during lectures.

For woodward tournament 2nd years

- Framework is usually how these debates are decided so explain your DAs, do impact calculus, do impact defense, and whatnot - if you don't go for framework, explain a solvency mechanism for the alt and win root cause

- A K is not a uniqueness CP + nonunique DA so don't pretend it is

- Familiarity of K's ordered below. For most popular arguments in 3, i.e. Baudrillard and Deleuze, I have read a decent amount of literature but you probably know more. You need to explain everything regardless though.

1. Settlerism, antiblackness, abolition, marxism & related, psychoanalysis, security, legalism/CLS

2. Agamben/biopolitics, Homonationalism, Edelman, beef-o/Zizek/people like them (idk what their thing is called), logistics (ye im kinda contradicting 1 whatever), anthropocene/europocene/somethingpocene

3. Everything else

critical affirmation

T-USfg

- T/L: I read a critical affirmative and had many of these debates. I also went for framework in a plurality of my 2NRs v Kaffs. Personally, I went for fairness or movement-building on the neg, and I like a viable counterinterpretation + one or two DAs for the aff. Negatives should explain their impacts and optimally go on case in the 2NR, that also applies for the aff. I'm not a huge fan of 2nc's hiding a dozen tricks in their overview. I'm also not a fan of aff's reading 10 DAs that are basically the same thing. Neither of those will affect my evaluation of your arguments though they may reflect in your speaks (and I will be somewhat generous about cross-applications).

- Fairness is probably an impact but the negative has to prove it

- I find clash turns and truth-testing presumption arguments to be unpersuasive

kaff v k

- 50/50 if permutations are a thing in these debates

- do line-by-line please signpost and stay organized these can get messy quick

- I feel like ROB debating is kinda overrated

everything else

- I like presumption and it's almost always in my 2NRs v bad kaffs

- specific CAs/PICs are cool and rehighlightings are cooler

- heg da and reading random policy arguments, sure I guess?

policy v policy and also some theory

- i like topicality debates immensely

- lean neg on condo but yk tech over truth

- lean neg on most process cp theory if the cp is abusive you should win pdcp but again tech over truth

- perfcon probably isn't a voter but it's a good reason to sever links

- framing will probably decide my ballot in soft-left v hard-right da debates

- zero-risk is a thing and doing it successfully will result in much higher speaks

- durable fiat, good faith implementation, I can be persuaded these are either abusive or do not solve

- das are das idk does anyone have preferences? politics is alright but obviously topic/case specific DAs are better.

hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoa! please add michellewu7154@gmail.com to the email chain

*for novices: novice year is all abt learning so if there's anything you want to work on specifically, let me know before the round

tldr:

- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments

- weigh and compare args, write my ballot for me

- time yourself and keep track of your own prep

- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment

- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory

abt me:

- currently a freshman in college,

- i've done policy debate since freshman year and ran policy strategies

about the debate:

- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)

- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides

- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)

- clarity > speed

- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about

- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech

- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)

for ld

i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.

good luck and have fun!!