I am a lay parent judge, and this is my fifth tournament judging. No aggressive strategies and speed, please stick to traditional debate only. I have only a very basic understanding of debate jargon, so please define your terms. I want you to tell me why should you win, don’t make me think too hard.

Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

I am a lay, noninterventionist judge in my 3rd year.

I will be flowing your debates carefully, please do not drop and remember key voters are important.

My email is elibotham@gmail.com

I did LD for my Junior and Senior years of High School.

Pronouns: he/him

Try to explicitly describe which arguments your opponent has dropped, extensions in your rebuttal speeches, and explain how this impacts the flow of the round with focus paid first to the (A) details at the card level, (B) encapsulation into card "handles" that preferably include (B.i) an author name and year and (B.ii) a brief summary that can get shorter as it is referenced multiple times and (C) an analysis of possible interactions with other content, and (C.i) analysis must include a terminal analysis underneath a framework, otherwise your argument's impacts may be unclear and therefore relatively meaningless to me.

I think that an indicator of true understanding is when a person explains a rather complicated thing in simple language, or clear thought experiments with examples that are mapped back to the more abstract language, as well as explicitly described assumptions about the model that you're working with or that your opponent is working with.

I'm ok with some speed, I'll say "clear" if your spreading is unclear.  If it is too fast but enunciation is okay, I'll say "slower," and I will try to communicate with body language such as with affirmation like nodding my head if I am okay with increasing speed.  I'm not particularly fond of the strategy of reading so many arguments that it is easy to hide a critical argument in the mess of other poorly executed arguments with the intention of flowing it through in rebuttal speeches.  I call this phenomenon "shotgun debate," particularly when lots of theory is involved and there are tricks mixed in so that some of the many many shotgun pellets unpredictably expand in rebuttal speeches, and yet any of the pellets could have expanded. It is almost as though these new expanded arguments are entirely new arguments, so just be careful and make sure you're really connecting to prior arguments in rebuttal speeches. My tolerance for theory is somewhat low, and I need explanations for some of the jargon, due to lack of experience judging t debates.

I think that winning FW debate can be very strategic if you show how your opponent's impacts fail to fit underneath the winning (your) framework. An argument that drives home the irrelevancy of your opponent's arguments is a powerful one, especially on the AZ circuit where FW debate is practically non-existent and nearly everyone reads some version of util. I still suggest doing impact weighing underneath both FWs, however.

I think that explaining why your evidence is better than your opponent's is strategic. Dive into the methodologies of your studies versus your opponent's. This can be uber convincing.

A tip that I received from a wise judge: debate within the realm of familiarity. This will make your arguments make more sense and be more convincing. On the other hand, if your primary intention is to learn, take a few risks. Stray a little into unfamiliar debate territory if you want to learn faster.

I don't have much experience judging K on K debate, though I can still evaluate arguments.

Plans and CP's are always ok.

Make sure to explain the lit if you're reading a K or FW that isn't often read. Explain it to me to win, to your opponent so that you're kind. I'm used to hearing LARPers that read very straightforward versions of util or structural violence. I've heard Settler Colonialism a lot too. I've seen a few performance K's. I have some experience with running deontology as a debater myself, but I don't see it as a judge very often.

On the K: -------------------------

I like crystal clear Alts that paint me a picture of what the world of the Alt looks like.

I like well-warranted arguments that provide strong links from the Aff to the Neg. It's frustrating to me when Negs read their K's and don't explain the links because they didn't listen to the 1AC well enough to point to specifically on the flow where the Aff links.

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

I'll drop you if I see a blatant microaggression in round or treatment of your opponent that is demeaning, racist, homophobic, etc. I'll try my best to be as sensitive as possible when explaining my RFD since most of the time, I think that these sorts of behaviors are not consciously intended yet still important enough to base my RFD on.

Try to learn something in every debate round. Always argue for something that you find convincing, using reasons that you believe. Find a new reason to reaffirm your pre-existing beliefs or change your mind about something. In this way, every debate round should be a victory for both sides.

I think mutual disclosure before round is good for improving the quality of the debate.

I like clever humor. Clever humor increases the probability that vibration assessments of the room return positive and reduces debate toxicity. That being said, I won't vote on a vibe check of your opponent, especially if they're Neg.

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

Background: I debated LD for 2 years in middle school, 4 years of CX/5 years of congress in high school; coached LD, CX, PF, and congress for 4 years. I consistently competed and qualified for nationals in both congressional debate and policy debate. I've previously judged PF, congress, LD, policy, big questions, and occasionally speech.

I am now a sophomore at UCLA, working in the esports industry. I'm unfortunately a little bit rusty with debate since I haven't been back in the community for a long time, so please be patient with me as I slowly get back into it!

General Paradigm: I'm as tabula rasa as I can be, so I'll vote for just about anything, as long as y'all have provided a reason for me to do so. Whoever wins the debate on the flow will be the winner of the round; technical application is more important to me than truth. I’m fine with speed, but analytics and tags shouldn’t be spread through. If I cannot understand you, then I won’t flow the argument.

I don't mind open cx. Since it's an online tournament, I will not hold any technological issues against y'all, as long as it is not extremely disruptive to the event. Sending speech documents isn't considered prep, so long as it's a reasonable period of time. Please make sure to add me onto the email chain: lchen725@g.ucla.edu

Debate should be fun, so do what's fun for you, as long as it does not come at the expense of others. Offensive or harmful statements made in round will reflect on the ballot. Please be considerate and kind to each other.

Specifics:

Aff: I'm okay with any type of affirmative. I have experience will all types, hence I will not favor one type of affirmative over another.

Neg: I'm okay with most arguments! I ran a lot of kritiks during my career, specifically psychoanalysis (Lacan), so these arguments are always welcome. Even if you run a kritik that I am familiar with, please treat me as if I'm not. This helps me understand kritiks that I don't know, shows me that you know your kritik well, and allows everyone in the round a fair chance to participate in the debate because everyone can understand the kritik.

Please be very clear with topicality/theory. It's the only argument I'll really have an issue with. If T/theory is not clear from the start and ends up devolving into a muddled mess, chances are, I'll throw it out of consideration. If you're a heavy theory team in particular, I might not be the best judge for you, but I'll still vote on it as long as the arguments are clear.

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

I have not done debate in a bit but I was always a traditional LD debater and usually evaluate pretty heavily on framework. I do understand some more progressive args if done right and can keep up with a fair amount of speed within reason but keep in mind that speed will make it harder for me flow more progressive things

Hello! My name is Jim deVos and I am a parent judge. I am fine with non-traditional debate but I have just a few guidelines that I would like you to follow:

- PLEASE NO SPREADING - I am a very old man and may have trouble picking up words. If you talk too fast I may miss your important points!

- Please no personal attacks. Let's keep it friendly and professional.

- At the end of the round, I won't disclose the winner or give feedback (but I will send written notes).

- Please keep track your own time, if that's okay.

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

LD:

This is my 8th year judging LD; I am a former competitor and a former LD coach. I'm currently working on a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Arizona State with a focus on the development of universal vaccines against influenza and enjoy giving back to the speech and debate community.

I prefer traditional argumentation, but that's all it is: a preference. I'm fine with, and welcome, speed and progressive argumentation (K's, DA's, CP's, perf, T, you can run whatever you want). Make sure you make good use of crystallization an key voters in the 2NR/2AR to ensure that I'm not missing whatever you feel is most important for my consideration.

Clear authors and taglines are appreciated, add me to the email chain/use the file share, and (specifically for novices) don't forget to crystallize, impact calc, extend, etc. Haikus are cool.

Policy:

See my LD paradigm but throw out the traditional argumentation thing (though there was one round I judged where the teams agreed to use LD style argumentation which was simultaneously disorienting and awesome). It's been a while since the days when I judged policy regularly. I didn't' do policy when I used to compete, and the activity has evolved so much in the couple of years since I regularly judged it. Bear with me, add me to the email chain, and feel free to ask me before round if you have any specific questions about anything.

This is a debate - not a contest to see who can read a prepared statement the fastest. The debaters should prepare their written arguments but not read them. The written arguments should be used as the basis for the oral debate.

There is no substitute for presenting a clear and concise oral argument in support of the debater's position. The debater cannot and should not assume that the judge has received or, if received, will read the written statement.

This is a debate and it is up to the debater to orally present, explain, defend and prove his/her argument. To paraphrase of the famous line from the movie "Philadelphia" - "Explain it like you are explaining it to a second grader."

Absolutely no ad hominem attacks or comments should be made. The debater should let the facts speak for his/her side.

Affirmative -Arguments must be fact based and set forth without resorting to emotion or unsupported hypotheses. Rushing through the argument to get everything in is not preferable. It is better to leave out part of the argument during the initial presentation than to go so fast you cannot be understood or present an argument so convoluted as not to be understood. The goal is to convince the judges that the Affirmative argument is based in fact, logic and reason to the extent it cannot be denied.

Negative -It is up to the negative position to attack the conclusions and rationale of the affirmative position. It should be precise in its attack, but based solely on the argument. As with the affirmative, the position should be clear and concise, but the Negative should always targeting the Affirmative position with either rationale for such position's failings and/or alternative conclusions. To that extent a step by step rebuttal may be warranted. Even a simple dismissal of part of the affirmative as "not based in fact" is acceptable - if such dismissal is then backed up with counter-facts.

Cross examination - the art of cross examination is to get the other side to give your argument. The best cross examiners actually testify by asking questions in such a manner that the "witness" answers with a simple yes and is not given the opportunity to respond with long answers the eat up the questioner's time. For example: Q "Is it not true that people program the computers?" - A "yes" - Q "And people make mistakes" - A - "Yes" Q. "So if there is a mistake by the programmer then there will be a mistake by the computer." - A "Yes Q. "So the computer is no better than the person who programs it." No answer is required as the point has been made. - The best cross examination is one in which the witness is made to testify against him/herself while making the other side's argument for it.

Summation - the is the last opportunity to stress the strong points of your side and the weak points of the other side. It should be simple and direct and, whenever possible, a litany of comparisons between the two sides showing how your side is right and the other side is wrong.

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

I am a former LD debater, and have currently been judging semi-consistently for 3 years. When it comes to style of debate, I am open to almost all types of traditional and progressive forms. I will not accept non-topical critiques or disclosure theory (If you have any questions about this or a certain theory or critique you wanna run, feel free to ask before the start of the round). I also will not allow flux prep part way through the debate, both debaters must agree to flux prep before the round if they would like to do so. regardless of style of debate or speed, fluency should be happening to an understandable level, and I would ask if you are to read at a spreading speed then please slow down to a normal pace for headlines and authors. If you are worried about your mic working consistently either due to its quality or internet connection, please don't. I will ask everyone to send their cases over and I will read and count anything from the highlighted section of your cards even if your mic cuts out for technological reasons. That being said, I will need your case to be properly formatted and highlight (or at the very least done in a way that is understandable to read and listen for me and your opponent). Please don't waste your time explaining debate jargon or the resolution (unless there is a legitimate reason to provide definitional framing in your case) to me, I have debated and judged long enough to understand what you are going for in most cases. I expect and prefer strong line by line arguing and sign posting for me and your opponent throughout your rebuttal speeches. I would also suggest giving key voters at the end of the round in order to neatly crystalize your arguments and framework evaluate the round. If I have missed anything beyond what has been previously stated feel free to ask me before the round has started.

I'm a parent judge who has judged debate for around 2 years.

Few key disclaimers

-Go slow and speak clearly so I can understand your arguments and warrants.

-I don't want to be on the email chain, I prefer you go slow and help me understand your points.

-I prefer a more traditional style of debate, make sure to simplify and explain any complicated arguments to me.

-Keep your own time please.

-Off-time road maps are helpful/Key Voters in 2NR and 2AR please.

-If you speak too quickly I will have difficulty flowing. I will give u a "clear" warning and the second time I won't flow so please GO SLOW.

How to get my vote

-I'm a believer in the fact that Aff should defend the resolution, and the negative should disprove the Aff. Try to stick by this doctrine when giving your speeches.

-I'm not gonna vote on an argument unless you bring it up in your 2NR/2AR because these are arguments that you consider most important. To get me to vote on an argument it must be extended throughout and explained with good warrants.

-I also base my vote majorly on impacts, so doing some impact comparison and weighing on your opponent's arguments really helps me to decide the ballot.

-Finally, I need good warrants/line of reasoning on any points you make otherwise I wont vote on it.

-Please guide me to your ballot by giving me key voters on what you are winning and why.

Hello! My name is Kay Karlin and my pronouns are they/them. In high school I did four years of LD debate and two of congress. I've judged policy, PF and LD for five years. It is most important to me that competitions understand their own arguments and are able to convince me.

For all debate: email for email chains is kaykarlin6@gmail.com I understand technology issues but I set a timer for 5 minutes for any wifi/email/google doc confusion. Anything past 5 minutes comes out of prep time!

Extentions should include Year, Author, Tagline, idc what order, but you must include all these!

Arguments against people's identities, basic human rights, or that are aligned with racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated and will get you dropped and reported to your coach.

I am open to speed, but I will say clear if I can't understand you. However, as a coach and in general I am anti-spreading. I think that spreading is bad for debate, because it encourages us to make the space more inaccessible in order to win arguments. Again, I am fine with speed, you can spread in front of me, but I think that we should make a shift as a community away from spreading.

LD Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues but I'm open to Ks/CPs/Theory so long as you can sustain your argument. If you NEED to run seven off cases to solve inequity in the debate space, I want to give you the space to do that. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated. (Do not run disclosure theory with me. It's bad for debate/small school accessibility and I will drop you.)

Definition debate is boring!!! Have a productive discourse!

For Ks-- my threshold is a bit higher but I never want to prevent you from making arguments you're passionate about. Just be prepared to highlight/defend/extend your link, impact, and alt. (Fine with K-affs, Identity Ks, etc)

I will drop speaker points for prefacing. (Using your time to question your opponent to frontload your case with arguments that haven't yet been presented in round)

DO NOT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE-- all of your impacts should be evaluated (and will be evaluated by me) under the framework. I do like to see competing ideas of frameworks, but I understand that timing makes that difficult, but I want to see debate about which world creates more benefit.

If you plan to debate in LD like it's Policy-lite I am not the judge for you. Framework is one of the most important things to me.

Policy Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues, and I'm not a huge fan of theory, but debate is your world and I'm just living in it while we're in round and I'm open to whatever you can justify. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated.

I love to see speeches explicitly comparing the Aff and Neg plans and impact calculations based off that. Prove to me why your argument is better.

Tag Teaming for CX is fine, but I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space, but I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

PF Paradigm:

PF is the area of debate in which I have the least experience, but I like to see a healthy clash.

I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space.

I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

Chase Laibe

Experience:

Debated 4 years at Desert Vista high school

Senior at Baylor

3x NDT Qual

Although I don't really think paradigms are that useful, I'll try my best to summarize some of my thoughts about debate down below.

email:chaselaibe@gmail.com

K general

I was a K debater most of high school and all of college. While I pretty much read and am comfortable with a lot of literature my research practices tend to focus more towards Baudrillard, Bataille, Psychoanalysis, James, and a variety of other nonsensical positions. While I am more fluent in these positions know that just holds you a higher threshold of doing it well. While links to the plan are nice, I don't really think it is that necessary. Personally don't think you need to win an alt if there is sufficient framing.

K vs Policy

Judge instruction is def a necessity in these debates, in order for neg teams to win these debates usually need to win a turn to the scholarship presented by the affirmative, or winning that the plan worsens the impact that outweighs and turns aff. Affs def should be able to defend the ideological underpinnings of the affirmative so in these debates don't be afraid to read your 5000 heg good cards. I find these debates quite interesting.

K v K aff

These can easily be the best and the worst for me, make sure to spend time explaining your theory of power and how it interacts with your opponents. I think the biggest thing for Affs in these debates is being able to clearly explain "solvency" as well as your method/theoretical approach/alternative. I think presumption is often under utilized in these debates and affs often dismiss it too quickly.

K aff vs FW

Honestly indifferent and don't have too many predispositions towards these debates, so if this is your jam go for it. I find a lot of times in these debates both teams need more explanation of there model and how it would function in debate. I will vote on procedural fairness just know I am more persuaded by the skills/education side of impacts.

POLICY

While I am most comfortable with K debate def fine with this as well just make sure to not use too many topic buzzwords as I haven't judged too many of these debates on this topic. Def fine with pretty much anything you want to read so go ahead and read your extremely contrived process CP just know I would prefer more judge instruction in final rebutalls. I like T and find those debates interesting as well.

Other Random Thoughts

Speaks: I find myself giving slightly higher speaks than average

Other Debate Events Besides Policy:

Fine with anything, note I will hold you to a higher standard of argumentation explanation, and clash than most judges

This is my first time judging! I've watched some online tutorials so please bear with me. She/her pronouns by the way.

Listing things out not necessarily in order:

1. I am a lay judge

2. I will not tolerate racism, homophobia, ableism or discrimination of any kind

3. Be respectful! No personal attacks.

4. I think I can deal with some spreading, but don't spread too hard because I still need to process what you're saying.

5. Arguments that can generate social good is up my alley!

Have fun debating!

I'm a limited prep coach now, and in high school, I predominantly competed in extemp with the occasional PF and BQ.

I like a good framework and relevant and strong evidence. I also strongly value a well-structured speech & the ability to defend it well. I love me a good off-time road map but please follow it in your speech.

PF:

I typically count reading cards that were called as part of prep time, but that's mainly for the sake of keeping rounds running on-time and not spending forever in a round because of card calling.

I WANT TO HEAR A WEIGHING OF THE ROUND IN SUMMARY & FINAL FOCUS SPEECHES. Otherwise you're leaving me to weigh the round for you and nobody wants that.

LD:

As long as you are clear, I have no preference for what you run. I will vote off what you give me. With that in mind, be very careful about running FW debates unless you have a specific reason to do so because I have seen it get messy quickly when students don't run it well.

I hate spreading. To me, a good debater does not need to rely on speed in order to win a round, and spreading makes the event less accessible overall. I can handle pretty fast speeds of talking, so don't feel like you have to go conversational, but if you're sacrificing enunciation for speed, that's where I draw the line.

Add me to the email chain at amy.lindteigen@gmail.com :)

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Tran Nguyen

trannguyen0002@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

- I have some competitive experience in LD and prefer more traditional, substantive debate. Thorough debates over stock issues are more appealing to me than other strategies which may sidestep the resolution. I'm most comfortable with Plan v. Counterplan debate - weighing the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

- I am okay with Kritiks but am probably not familiar with the topic literature. If you decide to pursue a kritik, please explain the concepts fully and avoid buzzwords. I also prefer concrete, implementable alternatives.

- I am not very amenable to theory. I am willing to vote for theory if real, round-altering abuse occurs but I do not have a lot of experience with the intricacies of theory (like standards/counter-interps/RVIs, etc).

- Please do not speak too quickly. You may talk faster than a conversational pace, but nothing close to spreading. I will let you know if you are going to fast, but please respect my boundaries after I establish them.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything else you would like to know!

I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.

Please give clash.

I don't mind progressive arguments, I don't mind spreading, and I don't mind Flex prep. Personally, I believe that in debate anything goes as long as you genuinely believe it.

I'm not a big fan of K's on AC , but if its something you actually believe in and has a good link go for it. I have a really high tolerance for abuse. I usually don't find K's, counterplans, or picks to be abusive so it's really hard for me to vote on theory. And if you do want to run theory please run drop the argument. I HATE drop the debater, I find it needlessly cruel. I am a flow judge, and I tend to favor Framework over contention level. Please give clean impacts, and above all be nice to each other in cross. Yell, flip chairs, do whatever your heart desires in your rebuttals, but I value cross REALLY high in speak points and there is no reason to be aggressive in cross. Especially over a simple answer. It's my ultimate pet peeve, debate is about education and there is absolutely no need to be rude in cross. I want clean extensions and clean weighing! As a judge I should never have to sit there and wonder which argument has a greater impact. I legitimately want the weighing spoon feed to me! It's your time to shine! Give me that impact calculous, and give me those key voters!

To anyone who reads this I wish you luck in your round, and Don't forget to have fun!

He/Him/His. Hi I'm Nik. I was LD captain at Arizona College Prep for 3 years, and now I’m a data engineer. It's really hard to get a 30 from me, but if you do you're probably my new best friend. Would I like to be on the email chain? Why, I thought you'd never ask! nikpearce1@gmail.com

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Pref me if you read Bostrom

Speed: Slow down if I'm not familiar with what you're reading. I'm fine with almost any speed, but if you start slurring or becoming incomprehensible in some manner, I will say clear. The more times I say clear, the more speaker points you'll probably lose.

Order: Theory/T > K > all else, unless you tell me otherwise.

Framing: I need to know how to weigh the round. Therefore, I need a good framework debate with a clear winner by the end of the 2AR in order for me to make a decision. You really don't want me to make this decision for you, as one of you probably won't be happy. This doesn't mean the framing debate needs to take forever (if it does, I probably won't be happy), but, 15-30 seconds at the top of the rebuttal wouldn't hurt.

Ks: I'll have an easier time understanding lit I'm familiar with, which includes Boudrillard, Foucault, Cap, Anthro, Citizenship, Militarism, Set Col. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run other lit in front of me, but if you do, make sure you lay out your links and impacts clearly so I can understand why your topic matters more than what your opponent is discussing.

Theory: I ran theory when I was a debater and I'm open to hearing theory in round, just make sure your definitions are very clear. I default to Theory > K, but it's easy to convince me otherwise.

Speaks: If you care about speaker points, pay attention, as my system for achieving good speaks is somewhat unorthodox.

30: Be the best debater I've ever seen, or sing to me the entire first verse of Lose Yourself, by Eminem.

29: Be an all around solid debater who I legitimately think can win the tournament, or make half of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

28: Be a solid debater who I definitely think should break, or make a quarter of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

27: Be a good debater with lot's of potential, I may have had to say clear a few times, or at least mention Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

26: I probably had to say clear multiple times, but your case was alright.

25: You screwed up somewhere, switched sides, stumbled, sat down with 1 minute left to speak, etc.

20: You were objectively bigoted in some way shape or form to your opponent, myself, or really anyone.

Best of luck!

”Do I need to be liked? Absolutely not. I like to be liked. I enjoy being liked. I have to be liked, but it's not like this compulsive need to be liked, like my need to be praised.” -Michael Scott

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in the evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread. I do flow. I prefer traditional over progressive. I listen to and consider cross-ex in making decisions. I would like impact calculus and key voters in your speeches to condense the round and make it easier for me to vote.

I'm a parent who has been judging for a couple of years, but still learning every time I do this. For LD, make it easy for me. Keep your own time and avoid spreading - I want to be able to understand and follow you. Numbering your contentions and sign posting help me greatly - I care a lot about this. Always tell me why you won and why I should vote for you - you may be able to convince me.

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

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

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

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

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

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

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

I enjoy strong framework. Present your case, support your case and weaken your opponents case. This is about you, so do your thing.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

I am a parent judge who has judged for 1.5 years. Im not the best, but expect clear impact weighing, framework debating, and warranting.

Please enunciate the names of cards, their tags, and contention/sub-points.

No spreading. construct your case as logical as possible and should follow a flow.

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com