Tabroom.com

College Prep LD Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maxine Adams BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent 2 rounds

Naomi Alan Marlborough School 3 rounds

Malachi Ambrose Bergen County Academies 2 rounds

Alex Baez Hire 6 rounds

Sheelah M Bearfoot Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 17, 2021 at 11:12 AM PDT

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Dayanand Bhojak Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

John Boals The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 20, 2022 at 4:56 PM CDT

TLDR: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

I am not ideologically opposed to any arguments. I like debate, I like when students talk about things they care about, and I like helping students get better at advocating for those things.

Note: If a debater introduces an argument that can reasonably be understood as “death good”, I will immediately submit a Loss for that debater with the minimum allowable speaker points.

Basic Info:
John Boals
Boalsj@gmail.com (Email Chain + Email me if you have questions about my judging preferences)
Debated for Apple Valley (2013-17)
I did College Policy for Concordia-Moorhead (I was a 2N) #RIP
No longer actively coaching - I now work for in advertising full time and coach/judge infrequently

Things to know in the 5 minutes before the round:

Truth > Tech but tech will not be ignored entirely. Communication studies grounds how I think about persuasion and argumentation. Don't assume I have a deep knowledge of the topic or your literature. The only "Insert this ______" I will evaluate is an image (chart, graph, meme, etc).

Disclosure theory is cowardice. Just debate. I’ll vote on it if I have to, but I think it’s a combination of whining and a fear of rigorous argumentation.

I am a sucker for limits and epistemology/ontology first. Please make a presumption argument – if you don’t think the aff does anything, I’m thinking the same thing.

A fun survey:

Feelings--------X----------------------------------Dead inside

Evidence Quality----X--------------------------Evidence Quantity

Policy----------------------------X-----------------K

Tech--------------------------------X--------------Truth

Read no cards----------X-------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good-----X-------------------------Conditionality bad

Not our Baudrillard--------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard

Limits--------X--------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---X-----------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face--------------------X---------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2020 speaker points--------X---------------------2007 speaker points

Fiat double-bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

"It's inev, we make it effective"---------------------X------"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

The Super long bit for Prefs:

How I write my Ballots:

I look at each flow and try to figure out what each side is winning. Where I look and the order I evaluate is determined primarily by judge instruction offered by debaters. I try to line up the aff/neg arguments on each sheet to see what clash exists between winning arguments, considering degree/risk/probability (sliding scale, but I believe terminal defense exists) to determine the strength of offense. I then take time to compare the different flows (hopefully just 2 by the 2AR) to check for overlap while also taking into account the layering arguments that come into the debate e.g. K before case.

I then try to write a ballot for both sides and see which one makes the most sense. If they both make sense and don't look like intervention, I return to prior steps to reclarify offense/defense.

Topicality/Framework/Clash of Civ:

I'm willing to vote either way on this. I think that the topic exists for a reason but what that reason is, what the topic means, and how we engage the topic are all up for debate.

I am not particularly receptive to an RVI on these types of arguments but think that impact turns to T/Framework are fair game.

TVA's are best with a card and must meet your interp.

I don’t think fairness is an intrinsic voter but an internal link.

I heavily appreciate creative T arguments, especially against K affirmatives.

LARP/Policy:

Plans are good. Counterplans are good. Disads cannot be "kicked" like advocacies. Judge instruction and weighing are extremely important.

Kritiks:

I like K's. I read K's on aff and neg. I've read a lot of books. I try not to fill in gaps for debaters. I like when the neg quotes the aff's evidence or CX answers to prove a link. I think that the permutation is a test of the links but can be convinced otherwise. My view on K’s a la Foucault:

"Critique doesn’t have to be the premise of a deduction that concludes, “this, then, is what needs to be done.” It should be an instrument of those who fight, those who resist and refuse what is. Its use should be in the processes of conflict and confrontation, essays in refusal. It doesn’t have to lay down the law for the law. It isn’t a stage in a programming. It is a challenge directed to what is."

Other Somewhat Important Things:

Most theory shells don't need a full shell in front of me. If you want to say intrinsic permutations are bad, just say “this is an intrinsic perm, intrinsic permutations are bad because ____, drop arg”

Pronouns are a voting issue. Slurs are a voting issue. Content warnings are good. I think that asking about those things in prep or cx often is a great learning opportunity but is definitely up to the debater. I will likely agree with you that harm has been done, but I think it’s important to remember that y’all are still students actively learning about the world and grappling with how to navigate it. This does not mean I will not vote on these arguments, but it is to say that not everyone has people in their lives who will teach them and/or hold them accountable. My position on this is very much influenced by prison abolition. Saying f*** the police and the carceral justice system means we don't act like cops with each other.

Feel free to ask me questions during CX or prep. I’ll answer any reasonable questions.

For HS LDers:

Theory:

I default competing interps.

If there is a competitive counter-interp extended with offense, I will vote on it unless told otherwise.

I like sketchy semantic I meets because they’re funny and deter bad theory and poorly worded interps.

I have before and will continue to vote on the colt peacemaker v k affs. It's not my fav (cuz it's a trash argument) but if a k aff loses to that argument they don't deserve the ballot tbh.

This is mainly for LD (because LD theory is wild), policy debaters do whatever

Phil:

I still don't understand the vast majority of ethical philosophy beyond rawls, kant & libertarianism. If complex analytic Phil is your go-to, I don't recommend preffing me but I will do my best to evaluate what you have presented. However, I would ask that you explain a bit more than usual because I just have virtually no knowledge on it and very little opportunity for exposure.

This will be updated as I learn more about my judging preferences.

Last updated: 10/16/22

Brett Boelkens Cogito Debate 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 4:03 AM PDT

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

Ranjana Burke Hamilton Independent 1 rounds

Albert Cardenas Marlborough School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 16, 2020 at 10:37 AM PDT

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albert@lamdl.org

Current: Regional Coordinator for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL)

Debated 4 years in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate league

Coach and Assistant Program Manager for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for 2 years

Currently attending CSULB (not actively debating)

General

- I don't appreciate being post rounded. If you don't agree with my RFD after multiple attempts of providing a sensible explanation, that's on you. I will tell you to be a better debater, gg. If you'd like, I'm open to exchanging emails so as to not stall future rounds.

- If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect some less than celebratory speaks.

- If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, then you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'.

- If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC without further context, I'm going to be lost.

- I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you do best. If you want to run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc., that's cool too! Just have a fun debate!

- I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.

- If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it when the round ends.

- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time.

- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques. Unless the neg has a very good impact analysis and comparison of what using certain phrases or words looks like compared to the aff's impacts, then it's not going to contribute to my decision calculus. However, I'll listen to your argument and flow it like I would any other.

For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is

1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics

2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

Aff/Case Stuff
I believe the case is important. That being said, if you don't have an impact, then why should i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say "nuclear war is going to occur" and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, or any other incantation of high theory, etc. Just make you use your case to its fullest is all i'm saying.

DAs
They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.

CPs
These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on them again. I usually don't however, because they're used as a time skew and/or lack any substantive explanation.

T
Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't really say anything, but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively. PLEASE slow down on your analytics a tiny bit.

Presumption

Yeah, I'll consider it.

FW
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.

K
I love these arguments; I suppose my preference of style might favor you if you enjoy deploying Ks. My understanding of the philosophies and theories of authors read in debate travel beyond the bounds of this activity, but just make sure you are explaining your criticism coherently because I won't do the work for you, nor will I reward butchered arguments. So, to reiterate, if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible. Just remember, I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol) in order to evaluate your arguments. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.

*I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.

Performance
I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg.

Let's have a good round.

Brenda Catt Carlsbad High School 4 rounds

Sriman Chavakula West High School SLC 4 rounds

Carol Chong Academy of Higher Learning 2 rounds

Danielle Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 12:12 AM PDT

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.
The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.
It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.
I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.
There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.
A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.
My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.
There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

That which is morally repugnant
This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent
X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 26, 2022 at 11:18 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to a theory argument. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Nae Edwards OA Independent 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 7, 2022 at 3:31 PM EDT

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.

TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.

Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.

Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.

DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.

CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.

K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!

K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(

T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).

FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.

SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.

OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.

Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life

Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!

Rex Evans The Harker School 5 rounds

Alan Fishman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 8, 2022 at 8:57 AM PDT

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. Tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and don't care about delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com.

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, while I am fine with tricks and spikes, I think you should put them in the doc for the sake of accessibility.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event.

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. Also, I love good vagueness shells but I am tired of the generic vagueness shell that cites the rules and doesn't say how specific the aff needs to be - if you run vagueness, give me a brightline.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I mostly follow Lila Lavender's position on speed theory, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove objectively that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I understand why people read these arguments, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity or lived experience, I will be more willing to vote on theory. The only way I know how to evaluate the debate is the flow of what happens in round, and I have trouble evaluating frameworks that ask me to look at something other than the flow.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I do not mind voting for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group.

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Arya Goel Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 17, 2021 at 2:24 PM PDT

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

Jim Gray Sharon 2 rounds

Gerard Grigsby Hire 6 rounds

Michael Harris Lynbrook HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 8, 2023 at 3:23 AM PDT

**Update February 2022 -- I shortened this substantially to focus on major things.

Email: michaelgeorgeharris1@gmail.com

Qualifications/background:

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualled to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently at Lynbrook and Silver Creek High Schools. I judge and coach all forms of speech and debate.

LD PARADIGM

I really don't like final rebuttals that are entirely pre-scripted. If this is your strategy, you will almost certainly drop key arguments on the line by line. The last speech can't ONLY be an overview -- you also have to engage the specific warrants of the other side's arguments.
Anything that you're reading off your computer, you should probably send out, either by email chain or speech drop. If you don't send your analytics, and you go through them at your top speed, without pausing at all, I'm almost certainly going to miss something.
That being said, while I do think you should send everything you're reading in-round, pre-round disclosure is not something I care too much about. That should be settled between you and your opponent and possibly the tournament, but shouldn't be the basis for a theory argument that you make in the debate. (Basically, I don't vote on disclosure theory.)
Start doing argument comparison/interaction as soon as possible in the debate. Do it in the NC/1AR if possible. Leaving it until the 2NR/2AR opens the door to judge intervention, in my opinion.
I like theory against counterplans like condo and PICs bad -- but if it's just 2 sentences in the 1AR, I don't understand how you could possibly go for it for 3 minutes in the 2AR. If you want to be able to go for condo, you have to set that up properly by reading thorough arguments and pre-empting the 2NR. (That being said, if the 2 sentence condo arg is dropped, I'll still vote on it.)
Lots of judges seem to think that a 2NR can only go for one thing -- but I don't have that preference. Go for whatever you want if you think you can win it.
I don't have an ideological preference against RVIs (though I personally don't think they're strategic).
A 1AR needs to be oriented around developing strong offense that you can go for in the 2AR. Spewing assorted defense against off cases is a losing 1AR. Be selective about the answers you read and articulate them in such a way that you can go for them properly in the last speech.

Dakota Hiltzman Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 22, 2022 at 8:11 AM CDT

General things that are always applicable

I am disabled. I have a disability that affects writing, fine-motor skills, and information processing. I do not flow speed, blippy arguments, or breathlessness well. If you choose to run these kinds of arguments anyway, be mindful that I will most likely miss key taglines, authors and warrants. That's not to say I'll close excel and stop flowing on principle, but If I have to choose between processing your argument and flowing then I probably will stop flowing at points. If I miss something because it's inaccessible, then it isn't a voting issue for me. Do not try to figure out my threshold for speed, it's insulting.
I only vote on clash, or offense that is both uncontested AND impacted. If the uncontested offense is dropped by your opponent, and you fail to show me why it matters, then it will not be a voting issue. I will not vote on an empirical impact calculus that fails to intersect with your opponent’s advocacy - this is a debate, not an essay writing contest. I do not care how good your cards are, or how qualified your authors are if you do not do the work of using them to make your own arguments. If you respond to a tagline without substantively engaging with the argument’s content, then I do not consider that clash.
I want to be on the e-mail chain: dakota-hiltzman@hotmail.com. Unless there is a reason for me to do so, I probably won't read anything you send me. That said, I want access to cards in the event that I fail to process an argument, or if there is an ethics question concerning the viability of the card.
Decorum is a voting issue. If you are nasty, needlessly aggressive, or rude then I have no problems voting against you for creating a hostile debate space. Your opponent does not need to tell me to vote you down for this reason, I will intercede and do so.

LD Specific things

If your value is morality because of the word ought in the resolution, and you don't do anything else to establish it, then I would rather you just skip your value entirely. It just feels so nebulous to me, and I'm sick to death of it. This is not me saying that I don't want a value/criterion framework, I would much rather you just value something else. Also, if your opponent is running value and you clash with literally any other value, I'll probably prefer the different value.
I don’t mind policy approaches to advocacy, but will never demand solvency, funding etc. This is not policy debate, as such the debaters are not responsible for the same burdens they would be in a policy round. I will always flow policy approaches to LD as an endorsement or indictment of value. This also applies to the Neg, if you run two disads then say aff doesn’t solve, I will not vote for you. I expect all Policy Affs to defend the whole resolution every time, policy can spec an aff because the topics are written broadly, LD topics are not written this way.
I love K debate, but please do not assume I know anything about your authors. Do the work, explain the theory, and impact your Alt. If you do not do these things, I will not evaluate the theory the way you want me to.

PF Specific things

In my ideal world the first set of speeches would be strictly constructives, the second set strictly attacks against your opponent's case, the third set strictly case defenses, and the final focus speeches would be voters. If your teams adapt this way, it will make me very happy, and keep my flow much cleaner.
Crossfire is not binding to case debate, if you want to garner offense for anything from anything said in crossfire, it needs to be made as a substantive argument in the following speech. I am not flowing crossfire, I usually use that time to make comments on the ballot. That said, I'm not ignoring you, and please don't be rude or needlessly aggressive.
(For virtual debate) It’s helpful for me if you can start each prelim speech with your first name and whether you’re Pro or Con. Since pro and con aren't set as first and second speaker, it can be confusing since we're virtual, I’m not looking at you during speeches because I flow in Excel.

Policy Specific Things

If you want me to judge the round like a policy judge, then consider me somewhere Stock issues and Tab. I will default to stock issues, but am open to interpreting the debate through alternative frameworks if both debaters consent or if arguments for utilizing an alternative framework are sufficiently justified. If you take an offense/defense approach, or your advocacy is mostly K or theory based, then I will approach the round like an LD judge - this is especially true for the negative, and I will not grant presumption for K or theory Negs.
I love good K debate (so long as the K isn't conditional or squirrelly), BUT, if you are going to go for the K then I need you to commit to it.
HATE everything-and-the-kitchen-sink negatives that read anything remotely applicable to the Aff and then kick out of all but one approach. All negative arguments (including counter-plans) should be unconditional. If you do kick it I still expect you to answer aff's offense on it, otherwise I may just go ahead and give to aff as offense.
Please extend warrants rather than authors. See point one under general, I cannot flow quickly enough to get your authors.

Virtual Debate Things

I live in a semi-rural area and do not have good internet access. When it is particularly bad, I may ask you and your opponent(s) to turn off your camera in order to preserve bandwidth for audio quality.
Per point 1, I'm not going to turn my camera on unless someone from tab directly tells me to do so. As long as I have no reason not to trust you, I'm okay if your camera is off as well. The only exception is in speaking events such, in which case I usually sit closer to the wifi router.
It is exhausting mentally, emotionally, and physically to be on camera all day in a way that it isn't to be in person. I do not want to penalize you for turning your camera off, afford me the ability to do grant you this grace.

Aryan Jasani Saratoga HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 10:39 PM EDT

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '24 (currently debating in policy)

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Saratoga AG, Plano West MZ, Stanford Online(CA)

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

Some Generic Stuff

1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities.

3)No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly.I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story. The predispositions I have listed below are general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.

4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

6) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.

7) Tech>Truth

8) Prep stops when the speech doc is sent.

9) Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

10) If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

11) The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely have ZERO tolerance for any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes a value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.

13) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Lisa Kahler Ayala High School 4 rounds

Charles Karcher Aragon High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 5:12 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Charles (he/him/his). My email is chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com.

For the 2022-23 season, I am in Taipei, Taiwan on a Fulbright grant to help promote debate here. If I am judging an online U.S. tournament, please be aware that I am on a +12-14 hour time difference.

This is my 9th year involved in debate overall and my 5th year coaching.

Conflicts: Charlotte Latin EL and AP, West Des Moines Valley, Lake Highland.

-----------

I am less concerned about having a detailed paradigm these days. I find that, at this point, debaters either don't read it anyway or already know to pref (or not pref) me. That said, here are some broad strokes that I feel inclined to keep:

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and French authors. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
Put your analytics in the speech doc!
Trigger warnings are important
CX ends when the timer beeps!
Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

David Kilpatrick The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 10:16 AM CDT

New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.

Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns or like "death k" are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].

In person thing - its easier to flow your speeches if you face towards me when you give them - giving speeches with your back to me is :c

I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin, Liberal Arts and Sciences Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Another new thing - my favorite debates are ones where the affirmative defends a topical example of the resolution (how you interpret the words in the resolution are up to you, but in this scenario you would defend a change from the status quo and defend the implications of your change w/either a traditionally topical plan or a well thought out and carded counter-interpretation) - the negative then criticizes the representations, justifications, philosophy, ethics, or method of the plan and make arguments about whether I should weigh the plan or prioritize something else first. Obviously you shouldn't try to over-adapt and do this if its not your thing, but well executed policy v K debates with lots of research, examples, and high quality evidence will be rewarded with extremely high points for all four participants.

Framework-

newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.

older - but not un-true

I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot, even though I don't think this is the most persuasive version of T. The reason is that K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine]

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.

-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Lukas Krause Archbishop Mitty 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 25, 2023 at 3:27 AM PDT

Nat Quals Note: do the type of debate you are best at. I am perfectly qualified and happy to judge slower style debate, just know that I will still not be deciding the round on the way you speak but instead on the things you say. Feel free to email me after the round to ask about my decision, speaker points, etc (though I might not always remember speaker points).

What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round.

Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.

I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, yes including nebel T, yes including K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands. With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.

I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.

Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff!

Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference

1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans

1 - Policy Args

1 - Phil

2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)

2 - Tricks

2 - Theory

2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)

3 - Ks (high theory)

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.

Below are purely procedural things

Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.

CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.

But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.

My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content

Nethmin Liyanage San Mateo High 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 20, 2023 at 7:22 PM EDT

I’ve bolded what you need to skim preround. Table of contents below for phrases you can ctrl+f to get to a specific portion of the paradigm. There’s also a ctrl+f section for opinions on specific arguments. My argumentative opinions are pretty much the same across all events. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Here's a table of contents - you can ctrl+f any of these phrases to get to a certain portion of the paradigm - i understand that this whole paradigm is unreasonably long to read pre-round --

-"about me"

-"tldr"

-"email chains"

-"actual paradigm/explanation of my thoughts and feelings about debate"

-"some general notes"

-"speaker points"

-"miscellaneous odds n ends"

-"opinions on specific positions (ctrl+f section)"

within the specific positions section, here are the labels for each position, so you can ctrl+f for those if you want: "case", "planless affs", "t/framework vs planless affs", "theory", "topicality (not framework)", "tricks", "kritiks (neg)", "disads", "counterplans", and "traditional debate".

-"arguments i will never vote for"

About me:

Hi! I'm Nethmin! I use she/her pronouns!

The Hill School ’20, Pitzer College ’24 (double majoring in cs-math and economics).

I coach policy at Damien High School and I coach a few LDers independently. I've coached both sides of almost every style of argument.

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I would consider myself to be competent at evaluating whatever debate you want to have. My debate history should not dictate what you read in your round. I think people should stop treating debate as their immortality project and let the students in the activity do what they want.

ideological flexibility is what i value most in debate. judges who hack against k teams and judges who hack against policy teams are equally objectionable to me, all else equal. i do not believe that the arguments a team reads are a reflection of how good/bad of a person they are (except, of course, cases where people do/say things that are egregious). i try to be someone who will vote on any argument as long as it's not delivered in a way that's morally abhorrent (bullying your opponent = bad) and it meets the minimum standards to be considered a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

tldr do what you do best; claims, warrants, and impacts are necessary; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; i care about argument engagement not argument style; stay hydrated & be a good person.

email chains:

nethmindebate@gmail.com for LD rounds (you can also use this email to contact me if you need anything)

damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com for CX rounds (please add both!)

Please have the email chain set up by the time the round is supposed to start - don't wait for me to be in the room. I'm always coaching at tournaments, so I likely won't be in the room for the round I'm judging until the time when the round is starting. Set up the chain beforehand, feel free to wait until I'm there to send it out.

actual paradigm/explanations of my thoughts and feelings about debate:

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

I'll vote for whichever team wins the line-by-line. It would be nearly impossible to change my mind on this absent something egregious and very out-of-the-norm occurring in-round.

I don't care what style of argument you read. My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it! I have far fewer set-in-stone debate opinions than most coaches/judges.

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else.These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Some general notes

Policy stuff: I tend to be a good judge for policy teams that read high-quality evidence, are able to explain/contextualize their args against a variety of different positions, and have a good understanding of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for policy teams that don't do the above, and/or rely on judges to do a substantial amount of work for them. I'm fairly familiar with the topic; the amount of explanation you need to do on acronyms/topic-specific intricacies is inversely proportional to how mainstream/close to the core of the topic the argument/concept is.

K stuff: I tend to be a good judge for K teams that are technical, good at argument engagement/comparative analysis, and understand how their criticism interacts with the core of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for K teams aren't able to adjust their level of explanation to cater to judges who don't exclusively research/coach their criticism of choice - this isn't because I want to vote against them, I just need to understand what they want me to vote for.

Framing and judge instruction are important. Your speeches should tell me how the arguments in the round interact with each other. Most rounds where a team is unhappy with my decision are rounds where that team failed to weigh, compare args, and give judge instruction. Write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!

Trad team vs circuit team -- I don’t think it’s anyone’s burden to shift their style of debate to accommodate anyone else. I do think it is the burden of both teams to respect all styles of debate and not be rude or condescending. You should each debate how you debate best and I will evaluate the round you give me. Both teams should engage each others' arguments.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time - it takes time for me to find the place on the flow where you want me to flow a certain arg. It's generally more efficient to handle arguments in the order they were on the flow, or at least try to jump around as little as possible. Also, I think that debaters being able to slow/clear the other team is key to accessibility, please be accommodating. I trust that all participants in the round will request and respond to accessibility-related accommodations in good faith; I have no interest in policing who "needs" accommodations, I just want everyone to be able to engage in the round.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round. Things like not being able to answer the majority of the questions during your cx will negatively impact your points, as will going for messy, confusing, and uphill 2nrs/2ars when there were easier and cleaner routes to the ballot.

Speaker points are scaled to the tournament. A 30 at an abysmal finals bid with 10 entries and a cow as a potential bid round opponent is different from a 30 at Glenbrooks or MBA. I'll be a bit more generous with points at tournaments where there's a 4-2 screw (or another similar consideration). I try to only give 30s to debaters that I think meet a decent standard of being technically proficient and argumentatively adept - even if I think you'll win the Online Nonsense Classic, I'll probably not give you a 30 unless I think you could hold your own at a tournament that is at least semi-competitive.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

This scale is based purely on argumentation/in-round strategy. I definitely give extra points if you do things that are listed below in the section for how to improve your speaker points.

I think that I give fairly average points when compared to other judges in the policy community. I try not to contribute to point inflation. I scale points to the tournament to attempt to find a balance between rewarding good/flexible/consistent teams and not punishing teams for the nature of the tournament. The "bonus points" for things that make debate better will likely mitigate my giving "bad points," if that's something you think I do.

Things that you can do to improve your speaker points:
-debate well, be clear, and win decisively (this will always be the primary factor i consider when awarding points)

-be kind! make the round more enjoyable and be kind to your opponents, partner, and judges! i hate being in debate rounds that feel like divorce court!

-be accessible and accommodating. be nice about tech issues, be nice to newer teams, be considerate of accessibility requests, check tab postings/the wiki for pronouns, etc.

-adapt to things that happen in-round. adjust to judges saying "clear," watch for nonverbal reactions/visible confusion, and engage with args.

-disclose! go to the room after pairings to disclose the aff/past 2nrs. if you think you've disclosed particularly well (contact info, open source with highlighting, cite boxes w/ position names as the citation names, disclosing on your team wiki), let me know, and if i agree that you've disclosed well, i'll boost your speaks a bit!

Things that will actively get you bad speaks:

-discrimination of any sort (racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, etc), bullying, egregious misgendering (issues of discrimination also get you a fun talking-to and an email to your coach).

-misdisclosure/lying about disclosure. if you won't disclose, just say that! don't lie/purposefully be sketchy. there's obviously a difference between forgetting something minor (oops, sorry, forgot we have a few new solvency cards) and intentional/malicious lying (fully telling someone the wrong aff).

-unnecessarily rude/disruptive behavior during the other team's speeches. occasionally looking confused during speeches is just a normal reaction - i don't think anyone understands 100% of the arguments that exist in debate. however, constantly shaking your head, laughing during speeches, being really loud when talking to your partner during speeches, etc. are just not necessary!

-ad-homs & asking me to evaluate things that happened outside of the debate & making the debate about someone's personal life.

the notable exception to this is disclosure - this is pretty much the only out-of-round event that i'm fine evaluating debates about.

i don't want to evaluate callouts/judgments about your opponents' coach(es)/interpersonal incidents that occurred. if there is an issue you'd like me to address, tell me before the round and i'll do my best to handle it in a way that makes you comfortable + informs the relevant entities (coaches, tabroom, etc). this isn't to say that i believe problematic/unsafe members of the community don't deserve punishment, but rather, i don't think the way to go about it is to let 4 minors debate it out for 2 hours and then submit a ballot.

-attempts to avoid argument engagement/clash. examples include "you can't answer the k because you're not x identity," "neg must concede aff framing mechanism," "no neg fiat," and other similar strategies.

Miscellaneous odds n ends that didn't really fit in other sections of the paradigm:

1 -- I'm increasingly unconvinced by cards cut from articles written by debate coaches. This is not directed at any one specific person or style of argument. I'm not saying you can't make certain arguments, but I am saying that you should probably find actual academic literature that makes the argument. If there is only one person you can find who says the thing you want them to say, and that person is a debate coach, you should think about why the only person saying what you need them to say is a person who has a vested competitive interest in the thing they're saying being perceived as true. Do with this info what you will.

2 -- I would really strongly prefer that trigger warnings/content warnings/accessibility requests are decided pre-round as opposed to mid-round/by reading a procedural. I'm happy to help facilitate anything that's needed in order to ensure that both teams can engage equitably in the round. I'll still evaluate these debates if they come down to a theory debate, I'll just be not super happy.

3 -- The debate people that I spend a fair amount of time with are Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Zoe Rosenberg, Jared Burke, Aly Sawyer, Sam McLoughlin, and Eva Lamberson. This is quite a salad of people, and I don't even know if this info is helpful, but I figured I'd include it in case you're curious. This also doesn't mean that I agree with all of their opinions, but I do talk about debate with them a fair amount, so they've likely shaped how I think about debate as well as how I deliver RFDs. It's worth noting that I coach with the first four people on this list (Tim, Chris, Zoe, and Jared).

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be much better for planless aff teams when they're straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material- "colonization didn't happen" is probably not the best strategy.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy - 2nrs that answer impact turns, make framing arguments, win the internal link to the aff's impacts, and generally are in control of the debate are much more enjoyable to evaluate than 2nrs that give me a generic extension of the framework offense that they're winning and then leave it up to me to weigh between their offense and their opponents' offense.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is. If your counterinterp can plausibly solve the core of the negative's offense, going for the ci will make more sense than if the aff doesn't say a word about the topic. The "no-topic-words-in-aff" teams will likely be more successful going for impact turns purely because the counterinterp will likely link to the neg's disads to the aff's model. This isn't to say that I'm opposed to mostly-topical affs going for impact turns or fully-non-t affs going for a counterinterp; just make sure you're able to adequately warrant what you're going for.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it. I am infinitely better for condo debates than I am for "must spec what state you're from," or whatever's cool these days. This isn't to say I have any super strong opinions about condo, but rather, I have rarely been able to find a warranted & convincing ballot story in rounds where theory arguments are unbearably frivolous.

I've noticed a trend in the policy community where a lot of theory debates tend to be resolved based on a judge's pre-existing biases/opinions regarding what is/isn't theoretically legitimate. I don't think I have any theory opinions that are so strong that I'd intervene/hack for a certain argument because of my opinions. If you can win that there's a violation, a reason your interp is good (and better than your opponent's interp), and a clear internal link to an impact, I'll vote for you.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

Theory defaults: competing interps, drop the debater.

My defaults on RVIs: absent a "no RVIs" arg being made & won, I'll assume that RVIs are theoretically legitimate/I'll evaluate an RVI if it's made. This doesn't mean I'll insert an RVI if it's not made. I don't have a particularly strong opinion in either direction on the yes/no RVIs debate.

Topicality (not framework):

Same defaults as theory.

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Negative teams that can clearly explain what their model includes/excludes and provide tangible examples of their abuse story are great! Negative teams whose arguments devolve into some flavor of "well i guess the aff doesn't feeeeeel topical" with no clear explanation of what is/isn't T are often better served going for different arguments. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go for these args in front of me (I actually find myself voting for them a non-zero amount) but rather, that you should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments more than anything.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact)

Kritiks (neg):

I value the explanation that you do in the round and the actual parts of the evidence you read, and I will not give you credit for the other musings/opinions/theories that I’m sure your author has.

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be! I love judging good K teams; I less-than-love judging K teams that want to run from clash/argument engagement.

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

I tend to think that counterplans need to have a text that is written out in a speech doc and emailed to all participants in the round PRIOR to the speech in which it's read. There's something that feels sketchy about letting teams type out a text to send out after the 1nc (or even worse, after 1nc cx).

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Wesley Loofbourrow Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri June 3, 2022 at 9:05 AM PDT

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

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

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!

April Ma Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 22, 2023 at 5:50 AM PDT

* if you're any degree of sick, covid or otherwise, wear a mask, my immune system sucks. I care about your safety, I hope you care about mine. I will personally find a mask for you if necessary. *

they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

4 yrs circuit/TOC policy @ BVW '19. Polisci BA UC Berkeley '22. PhD student Johns Hopkins.

did not debate in college. (98) - (118) [45.4% aff, 54.6% neg], sat 4x. juj/coach for college prep.

___

juj preferences

[me] I debated in proximinty to/am influenced primarily by ex-KU debaters and other Kansas diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read big stick heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. K-affs r my gray area, more below. I do not care that much about respectability, but ego posturing/nastiness and confidence/good faith are distinct. non-debate (personal) disputes are not up to the ballot. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I like an easy ballot - have not debated in 3+ years so keep this in mind. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them unless its not close - read: judge instructions necessary. Otherwise, I resolve the impact level first - who solves what, does it even matter, impact framing, etc. I might read a card only if teams have explicitly extended it for the entire debate or given a reason I should read it (misrepresented warrants, shrunken text, etc) other ev work is the debaters' job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful. i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN; I will clear you once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will try to meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech - if you can win in 3 mins, do it. i do not read "inserts", teams are responsible for reading recuts or interpreting visuals/charts. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must say "we want to call an ethics violation" or something to stop the round. if its verified/valid, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] clipping accusations resulting in ballots usually necessitate recording the round, recording rules are contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible.**I am following the 1AC and 1NC - read every word of the card. i can tell when you skip around the middle! seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! I will not stop the round for clipping unless it is egregious/the other team does not care or notice BUT your speaks will reflect it

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] marginal neg bias for limits/ballot not key, do not skimp the line by line. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs should solve something/change the squo. KvK debate is fine when i can keep up, teams do not do well in front of me if they do not strike the balance between technical and substantive debating. need judge instruction more here!

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm kinda familiar with most cap/security/ontology-relevant K's (or at least some of the lit bases). idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, wtv)

[disads] yes. impact turns are awesome. turns case analysis is also awesome. line by line? awesome

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. blips like "sufficiency framing" are meaningless w/o explanation. I don't weigh the CP unless i think there's a risk of the net benefit. remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] yes. default to competing interps. caselists are helpful in ground debates. SIGNPOSTING is a huge issue here. I tend to miss stuff while flowing so slow down. plus speaks for T debate that goes off the flow. the last good policy T db8 I watched was in 2020. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it!

[theory] me and bff have same opinions on theory blips and condo. condo usually good, but in round abuse matters. Seriously do not expect a good rfd on theory if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. If you are going for it, I want to hear every word.

[speaker points] everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for whatever mentioned above plus disorganization, offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary debates. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

Emmiee Malyugina The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 15, 2022 at 6:52 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Emmiee (they/them) - emmiee@berkeley.edu is the email

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian set-col. I've been coaching Harker LD for 6 years now and have taught at ~10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow.

Various other things of use:

I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy.
I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it.
If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be impact v. offcase weighing and then all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like. If the NC totally drops the AFF and you go for 100% SOL we O/W whatever whatever in the 2AR please give me a sentence in the 1AR about the AFF because it's weird to have it disappear and then reappear and very confusing.
I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't just try to win by being too incoherent/confusing for your opponent.

Other fun things:

• If someone's reading a K vs. you and you're confused, at least 50% of the time in my experience the argument is just incoherent and you should make the common sense "the alt obviously doesn't solve because ___"/"nothing about their K vaguely makes sense"/"___ isn't a link and the card isn't even about the topic or the tag it's something else entirely" argument that's in your head. I keep having to vote for Ks that I know are poorly executed because the other side psychs itself out.

• I vote for K AFFs and I vote for FWK all the time - it usually comes down to which side actually engages the other as opposed to reading generic prewritten overviewy dumps because that's the side that doesn't drop a bunch of things in the 1AR/NR/2AR. I'm down to vote for the "debate is a game and only a game ergo procedural fairness" flavor of FWK as well if you win it, but I very quickly start getting turned off if part of that strategy involves being a jerk to the other side.

• White debaters doing the Race War disclosure stuff confuses me. I'm not opposed to voting on it at all but I simply have no idea what this does so if it's going to be part of your strategy I need you to articulate the I/L link between that and whatever you claim it solves or allows you to do. Strategy-wise, "I'm not ____ but I get to read arguments about ____ group because ____" is a lot more intuitive to me than whatever is going on here.

• If you're going to go for "____ thing that wasn't on-face morally abhorrent is a V/I" I need to hear: [1] a warrant in both speeches and [2] some articulation of why this comes before whatever other framing arguments/layers exist in every speech this argument is made in - you can obviously have a lot more extrapolation on #2 when you go for it, but I find it hard to be persuaded by a 5 word argument that only really gets explained at the end of the debate

• Phil: I'm pretty familiar with the literature at this point even though this really wasn't my corner as a debater. A lot of the stuff immediately below applies - phil debates tend to devolve into each side proliferating a bunch of one-liners and then going for three of them without much weighing/etc and that makes it very hard to parse through. When one side says "nuclear bomb kills everyone so we can't enjoy life or discuss values ergo util" and the other side says "adding a circle to a circle doesn't make it more circular ergo kant" it is two ships passing in the night that hurt my brain. Please for the love of God tell me what the implication of you winning something on your end is for the phil debate writ large, why your stuff comes first, how it interacts with what's going on on the other side, etc. If you extend your 3 hot takes on the NC and do 0 actual interaction with the AC FWK or vice-versa you will either lose or have to sit for an hour while I stare at the flow and try to make it make sense.

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or semantics matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Alexandra Mork The Harker School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 20, 2022 at 5:26 AM PDT

My email is alexm3@staff.harker.org. Please add me to the chain

General:

1. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on anything that does not meet this threshold and I will vote on basically anything that does. The fact you say the word "because" after your claim does not mean what follows is a warrant.

2. I won’t vote on any argument that I cannot explain back to your opponent after the round. I need to be able to explain it back based off your explanation, not my prior knowledge of the argument.

3. Assuming they meet the threshold set in #1 and #2, I’m willing to vote on “bad” arguments. However, the less intuitive/worse that I consider an argument to be, the lower the threshold I have for the response.

4. If something is conceded, I grant it the full weight of truth. If I did not realize that an argument was being made, then I will not consider it to be conceded.

5. I will attempt to err on the side of least intervention. I think it’s the job of whoever presents an argument to prove the argument is true. So, for example, if the NEG team says “X card is a link to our K because it’s gendered” and then the AFF team says “no link, X card is actually criticizing gender norms, not perpetuating them,” I would consider both these explanations to be lackluster and have no way of resolving the question, but instead of reading the card and coming to my own conclusion, I would err AFF and assume there’s no link because it is the job of the NEG to prove a link to the K, not the job of the AFF to disprove it.

6. **********Debaters have an obligation to flow. You should send a marked version of the doc indicating where cards were cut immediately after the speech, but you should not delete the cards that weren't read. If your opponent wants to know what was/wasn't read, they must take prep or CX time. I will deduct speaks for debaters who don't adhere to this.

7. **********Slow down on analytics. This is especially true now that I haven't judged in a while!

8. Theory defaults: drop the team for T (or other arguments about the plan), condo, disclosure; drop the argument for everything else; no RVIs; competing interps. These are admittedly very arbitrary and I only created them so that I would have a consistent way of evaluating rounds in which neither side establishes paradigm issues - these defaults can and will change as soon as one team makes an argument to justify their paradigm issues. In fact, I would almost always suggest making a reasonability argument (especially against 1ar theory if you have specific warrants!)

9. I think good evidence is important in so far as it allows debaters to make arguments about author qualifications, recency, the methodology of their studies, quality of warrants, etc... but the onus is on you to make these arguments. I don't decide rounds based on my own readings of evidence unless there is a specific dispute about what a card says.

10. I don’t flow author names

Online Debate Specific:

I’ll call slow or clear once, but if I don’t call it after that, it’s not necessarily because I can understand you - it may also be because when I speak, your audio gets muted and I don’t think it’s worth it to miss more of what you’re saying if you’re not going to slow down anyways.

Record all of your speeches on voice memos so that if there’s a problem, I can fast forward to the time of the cut-out and listen to that argument. This means that if you get kicked out of the meeting or there’s any type of glitch, you must keep speaking and recording and then you can deal with the technical issue after your speech. And if you forget to record it during a rebuttal, I won’t evaluate what was missed.

Ethics:

I will end rounds in which I witness clipping because to the best of my current knowledge not clipping cards is an NDCA “rule,” and doc speaks when I see miscut evidence because to the best of my current knowledge, properly cut evidence is a “norm” (although reading theory about miscut evidence or ending the round for an evidence ethics challenge are still fair-game).

Vanessa Nguyen Marlborough School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 17, 2022 at 10:36 AM CDT

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com

Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.

University of Southern California '23. I do not actively debate anymore but am still involved with the policy debate team.

General:

Be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, I'm just a very monotonous person with a perpetually aloof facial expression. However, I *will* be upset if you are disrespectful or rude to your opponent.

If you lose, it's because you failed to do your job as a debater to persuade me that you've won. I don't like telling people they've lost. But I do like providing constructive criticism and feedback. So don't be arrogant after the round and I will happily explain how to win next time.

Tech > Truth. Clash is good--if you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.

I don't really have any firm and strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

I try not to intervene or impose my beliefs onto debaters, but the things mentioned below are what I think you should know about my biases and preferences which can definitely be swayed.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure if your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with K's. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your args more--I'm better if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

Fairness is an impact. And it's the best one.

Affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I don't know much about the topic and I'm not as involved in debate as I used to be. Please explain things a bit more, especially when going for T (I dislike theory and T debates if I'm being honest, understand sometimes it's necessary to go for it though).

Online debate is bizarre--please, please slow down when you're reading analytics or theory blocks or whatever. I dislike when debaters read analytics/whatever at the same tone and speed as they would with the text of a card--you just sound super boring and it should be clear what you're reading and saying.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

There's a fine line between being funny, light-heartedly sarcastic and being distastefully snarky. The latter makes me feel so uncomfortable. Avoid.

*LD Note: I've only ever done policy debate, so I will judge an LD round as if it's a policy round, just obviously shorter. I really dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!

Indu Pandey The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 3, 2022 at 12:35 AM PDT

Hiya! I’m Indu. A little about me... I debated for Harvard-Westlake for 4 years (graduated in 2018), qualified to the TOC 3 times, had 10 career bids, and won a couple of tournaments/cleared at the TOC. I previously coached at Harvard-Westlake for a few months and then coached at The Harker School for four years. I just graduated from Harvard in 2022 and now I work in non-profit. I take the she series (she/her/hers) and I don't mind if you use the they series to refer to me.

I want to be on the email chain. Your opponent should also be on it. **Email: indujp.2000@gmail.com

Check out girlsdebate.org – it has free resources, like cards and videos, as well as blog articles about being a woman or other marginalized debater.

Update for Blake 2022: I (soft) retired from debate after the 21-22 season, but realistically I've only been out of the activity for three months so do with that what you will. I should be able to keep up with whatever is happening. All of my paradigm still applies.

Top Level (this is all you really need to know):

- Debate is about arguments/ideas and not individual people. You all are children and creating an actively hostile environment doesn’t really jive with me.

- I can’t vote on arguments that are immediately evident to me to be false. By that I mean, if you read a theory shell or make a competition arg and you are just objectively wrong about the violation, I cannot see myself being compelled to vote for you.

- I don’t really know how to classify myself on the weird “truth” vs “tech”/”flow”/”tab” spectrum – I just want people to be reasonable. That means I’ll lean heavily on the flow, but if you make arguments that are self-evidently ridiculous or underdeveloped it won’t float my boat.

- I love CX!!! Like, seriously. It’s my favorite part of debate. A good CX is killer, and I’ll give good speaks for it.

- Sexism, racism, etc are obviously nonstarters.

- I’ll try to give everyone in the round a fair shake even if you read arguments I never did in high school, I’ve never met you before, etc. Likewise, I expect everyone in the round to treat me with respect. Post-rounding is cool, and people have important questions to ask. Just take a deep breath and avoid insults, yelling, etc.

- I flow. Just wanted to throw that out there.

- WEIGH PLEASE. Most post-rounding is a result of a lack of weighing, and I don't feel particularly bad if I drop you because you didn't make a single comparative statement for 45 minutes.

- I'd prefer if you all regulate yourselves. By that I mean that you should hold each other accountable for speech times, CX, etc. If there's some clear age/experience/other factor that seems to prevent one party from having an equal opportunity to control the round, I will step in. This will likely be pretty uncommon.

- In the era of online debate, I ask that debaters maintain a "professional" environment. Please hold yourself like you would in a classroom setting and situate yourself in a neutral environment. It's important that all debaters, observers, and judges feel comfortable in the "room". (Sit up at a table if possible, remove things from your background you wouldn't want your teacher to see, wear tournament appropriate clothing (be fully dressed....)) This has not been an issue for me thus far, but I want to establish these boundaries in advance.

- Start at 60-70% speed and build up to max speed. I have trouble hearing people if they start at full speed online. Please also locally record your speeches (i.e. record your speech on your phone/computer). In the event the call drops, this is the only way for me to go back and listen to your speech.

More specific things below. Honestly, you can change my mind on most of this stuff, and I’ll really try my best to give you a fair shot at winning these arguments. I just know as a debater I appreciated when judges put their default views on things in their paradigm to ease pre-round anxiety.

Policy Arguments:

Cards are cool------------X---------------------------------Tons of spin

Evidence comparison-X--------------------------------------------Make Indu flip a coin

PTX-X--------------------------------------------PTX?!!? ):

Conditionality bad-----------------------------------------X----Conditionality good

States CP good (+ uniformity)----------X-----------------------------------States bad

Agent, process CPs, PICs -----------------X---------------------------Boooooooo

Impact Calc------------------------------------------X--IMPACT CALC!!!!

4 second competition arguments -------------------------------------------X-- Real competition arguments

Answering straight turns --X-----------------------------------------— Aggressive eye roll

Kritik Arguments:

Overviews so long my hand cramps --------------------------------X------------- Line by line

What does [INSERT CONFUSING K THING HERE] mean? ------X---------------------------------------Smoke bomb!

Specific links to the aff ------------X---------------------------------Generic links

Hashing out what it means to vote AFF/NEG -X-------------------------------------------- ???????

Starting from the assumption certain arguments are true ----------------------------------------X----- Argument humility

The aff does literally anything -X---------------------------------------- Nothingness for 6 minutes

Explain the perm -X---------------------------------- hehehe perm: do both, perm: double bind, perm: do the alt & make Indu mad

COLLAPSING TO A FEW CORE ARGS IN THE 2NR/AR -XXXXXXX---------------------------------------- ha ha no

Making framing args in the 1NC/1AR --X----------------------------------------------------- me arbitrarily weighing based on my ~vibes~

Theory/Topicality Arguments:

Mix-and-match buy-1-get-1-free kitchen sink theory interps -----------------------------------------X- Debating?

Defend the topic!--------------------X------------------------- Completely non-T

Fairness/Limits good---------------X------------------------------Nope nope nope

RVIs--------------------------------------------------X----No RVIs

Slowing down on analytics & interps -XXXXXX--------------------------------------------------- LKDFGLJEOIKDFGLKJFDGL

Super structured LD froufrou shell -------------------------------------------------X---------- [Thingy] is a voting issue because ground blah blah

Shells that are actually just substantive -------------------------------------------X- make a substance arg?

Arbitrariness bad --X--------------------------------------------------------------------- hyper specific shells

Definition comparison in T debates --X-------------------------------------------------- weighing is overrated

Read a violation card in a T shell -X-------------------------------------------------------- assert a violation and hope for the best

Phil:

Explain atypical framework ---X------------------------------------------ Assume Indu understands 400 WPM metaphysics at 8 AM

Straight up -X-------------------------------------------- Tricks and memery

Collapse to a few core arguments ----------X----------------------------------- Everything

Actually having offense under your FW -X----------------------------------------------- 1 sentence analytic... ???

Misc:

- Please enunciate and be clear. If I clear you, it’s not because you’re going too fast, it’s because you are nearing or already are incomprehensible. Trust me – you can be fast while still making words come out of your mouth.

- Have some personality! I really enjoy people making some jokes, sarcasm, etc.

- I’m very expressive during round. I don’t really try to suppress in any way. Do with that what you will.

- Disclosure and being straight-up at the flip/disclosing cases pre-round/other related practices are good!

- Cheating accusations: you can stake the round on these. Tab could get involved. Have audio/video evidence of clipping. If a debater makes the clipping accusation, I will rely on the Tabroom provided clipping policy (if available) to make my decision and for guidance on how to proceed. Similarly, if a debater makes an evidence ethics challenge, I will rely on Tabroom's guidance when possible.

- Clipping: I've dropped a handful of people for clipping. I read along and feel comfortable dropping debaters regardless of if an accusation has been made by the other debater. If clipping happens once, I usually chalk it up to a mistake. When I do drop you, please be assured you were clipping egregiously (usually 3+ words) and consistently (usually 2+ cards). I've never dropped someone for clipping if they were super unclear, but I'm comfortable doing so if I've cleared multiple times, I'm ignored when I say clear multiple times, and the level of clarity is so poor such that a reasonable person could not discern which words were read and which weren't. Please don't cheat. I'm happy to have a conversation with debaters and their coaches during these difficult circumstances, but I ask for respect from all parties involved. It's incredibly frustrating for everyone when rounds end in this way, and I understand that these decisions may seem personal. Ending rounds because of clipping or other dishonest behavior does not reflect my personal evaluation of you as a debater or your team/coach. It's just in the spirit of academic integrity, and I hope everyone involved learns and grows from the experience. I take decisions to end a round very seriously.

- Evidence ethics: you can also stake the round on this. I take an accusation of this nature to mean they have substantially changed the work of an author such that it includes ideas not present in the original work or excludes critical portions of a piece of work, concludes differently than the author intended, or follows poor citation methods in a way that is academically dishonest. Here is a list of things I consider unethical (which is not exhaustive): cutting out part of a paragraph, adding your own (or that of another author) ideas to a card, skipping paragraphs in a single card, not noting when an author disagrees with the argument presented, and mis-citing (literally just incorrect cites).

- Like, I mentioned... I flow. That means, like you, I could miss arguments or not understand what you’re talking about. We all expect judges to be magic flow fairies, which isn’t true. Try your best to be clear, collapse to few arguments, and weigh. Little judging errors happen when there’s a million moving pieces, and I’ll feel less bad if I make a mistake and the round is like this.

- I read cards and like rewarding good evidence. My reading of evidence unless instructed or in extreme extraneous circumstances (ethics challenges, etc) does not affect my decision. I think debaters would do so much better if they read their opponent's cards because a lot of cards I've seen this season have had... sub-prime quality.

- As I went to Harvard-Westlake, I probably view debate in a similar way to my coaches and teammates. Some of them include: Travis Fife, Scott Phillips, Mike Bietz, Connor & Evan Engel, Cameron Cohen, Nick Steele.

- In light of recent events, I will wait to submit speaks until after the post-round is done. I think aggressive/rude/condescending post-rounds are bad sportsmanship and will be reflected in speaks. I'd like to think I have reasonably thick skin, so this is something that I don't think I'll have to use too often. Just wanted to give everyone a fair warning. This equally applies to your coach(es) & friend(s) who are rude to me after a round. If you can't control yourself, I will not be sympathetic.

- I sometimes (read: often) vote for a team even though I think their arguments aren't particularly good, they made contradictory arguments, or some other ridiculous thing occurs. It's incumbent upon the other debater to point this stuff out. Most of the time, they don't. If you don't, it'll just make everyone sad, including me. This scenario is where most post-rounding occurs. I generally won't just drop people because I don't vibe with their arguments.

- Please don't feel compelled to read arguments that you think I read in high school. I can tell when you read arguments to try to pander to me, and it's usually a worse quality debate than if you just read the position you actually wanted to. (No one believes this, but I read 50/50 K & policy args in high school and now judge 50/50 K & policy rounds... I actually don't have a preference. Seriously.) I don't need to hear decol fem and states every round -- don't worry about me. Do your own thing. (That being said, I judge a decent number of phil, theory, and clash rounds. I feel comfortable evaluating whatever you throw at me provided you do whatever you're doing well and straight up.)

- I vote relatively 50/50 in non-T aff vs FW rounds. You NEED to have offense and a defense of your vision of the topic/debate! Most of my decisions boil down to not being able to articulate what are big macro-level issues because people are overly caught in LBL. LBL is very important obviously, but that doesn't supplant the importance of explaining what model you're even defending.

- #stopsplittingthe2nr2k20 (Seriously, *who* taught you all to do this! I do not give above a 29 to people who split the 2NR even if you're in the finals of every tournament that year. There is 1/1000 instances where this is debate smart, and I bet you your round isn't that instance.)

- I'm uninterested in underviews. I don't think they add strategic utility, and they're boring. Read more arguments that defend the aff instead of reading infinitely regressive "evaluate the debate after X speech" and "we get 1AR theory" shenanigans. Theoretically, the best constructed affs are making a bunch of substantive arguments that pre-empt a variety of 1NC positions, which is why the best debaters win by reading--well--arguments. I've started to deduct speaks for this because it's getting pretty ridiculous and I just roll my eyes the whole time. Read at risk of your speaker points.

- I don't disclose speaks -- you don't need to ask after the round. Here's random things I enjoy and reward with higher speaker points (in no particular order): being passionate about your position, numbering of args, strategic collapse in every speech, not going for every argument, weighing(!), having a personality, using examples & stats effectively, anticipating your opponent's args, good CX, judge instruction, being respectful during the RFD & post-round. While I vote on args that I think are silly sometimes, people get low speaks for those rounds. If you, for example, go for some reasonable phil position and do it well/straight-up, that's fine -- high speaks. However, If you go for some ridiculous theory shell and bumble your way into a win, I will not be kind with speaks.

- I have chronic migraines that are sometimes triggered by excessive noise, which is sort of unfortunate given that debate... involves much yelling. I will occasionally ask debaters to speak softer if you yell-spread. I've only done this once or twice, but just wanted to give people a fair warning. (No, the migraine does not affect my ability to judge your round. It's just painful. Be a homie.)

Happy debating!

Joanne Park Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds

Raj Rajagopalan Hamilton Independent 5 rounds

Alay Rama Plano Independent 2 rounds

Ruchir Rastogi Loveless Academic Magnet Program 2 rounds

Yardley Rosas Marlborough School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 6, 2022 at 2:02 PM PDT

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton. Teaching and judging debate since 2017.

thoughts on how I decide

> I live for when debaters take the presentation of their arguments seriously. I am good for speaker points if you: get off your blocks more, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/args snappy names, don't spread at top speed, give an overview, be organized, speak directly to me, etc.

> Read what you want, however you want, I don't care. I'll take any strategically applied argument into serious consideration for the ballot. However, don't rely on speed, quantity of arguments, or techy/blippy arguments. I'm good with speed but I am not the fastest flower so keeping up can be difficult for me, please take that into consideration.

> My decisions are usually based on a combo of meeting your burdens as aff/neg and controlling the big picture of the round. Most of the time this will come down to telling me how I should frame and weigh impacts. I need clash, comparisons, and warrants for that otherwise I'll decide myself what impacts matter the most.

> General: perms, links, solvency, and impacts need to be clear about how we get from point A to point B, don't lose sight of your warrants. - Policy v K: read a TVA. I don't think K's are unfair but I may be convinced for a round. I'm not interested in you solving for the K, I’m persuaded by models that center policy/education for the purpose of doing good in the direction of the K. How can T/FW/debate be used for the intents and purposes of the K? the more you answer this question and leverage your response against inevitable impact turns, the better off you'll be.

> To make both our lives easier, have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening and straight up tell me why you win. for example, tell me what you're winning and what your opponent is losing, etc. i'm not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. I am very receptive to this.

Pad Sadagopan The Golden State Academy 6 rounds

Parth Shah Archbishop Mitty 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 19, 2023 at 11:18 AM EDT

Email: pasdebate@gmail.com

Debate Files for Sale

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East HS (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and at the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

If you bring me food u get +0.3 speaks

9 times out of 10, I was reading non-traditional affs and going for the K, and I liked to read Racial Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Afropessimism, Baudrillard, Framework, among others. My experience as a debater and coach is 99% in the critical format.

I enjoy judging clash of civilization and critical v critical debates, traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me significantly low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Daryl Burch, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts. This includes procedural fairness - even though I personally do not consider fairness to be essential to the function of the game. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day I will adapt to your argument style. I was never a fan of judges who excluded certain debaters because of what they decided to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Vishal Sivamani Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 9, 2023 at 7:34 PM CDT

coppell 21 | jhu 25 | they/them | vishalsivamani9@gmail.com

conflicts: chs9, coppell, clear lake mk + aa + mb, rock bridge ds, barrington ac, enloe an + rn + pd, heritage wt, langham creek ml, oak ridge aa, ardrey kell sd, millard north sg, jordan vs, solebury ln

hi my name is vishal. i did ld/cx at coppell. qualified to tfa state 2x + caught a bid round my senior year. my students have been in outrounds of toc bid tournaments and have bid/qualified to the toc. if you have any questions about stuff below.

i'm currently coached by nyx moore and andy ellis. some other debate influences include patrick fox, blake andrews, jo barquin, sunhee simon, and holden bukowsky in no particular order. if they have opinions on debate i probably agree with them and you can check their paradigms for the nitty gritty stuff because i probably err a similar way.

hella serious about this --- don't misgender people. even if it's an accident if it happens more than once its an L0. same goes for identity checking in cx --- "are you a woman/man/x" is a question no one should be asking. please, please, please check ppl's wiki for pronouns or straight up just say "aff/neg" or wtv there are so many good alternatives to gendering people if you don't know their positionality. use them.

amended thoughts about nonblack afropess - i think similarly to holden about this - here's an excerpt:

"a note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning."

arg prefs

1 - k + larp

2 - topicality + theory + phil

3 - tricks

honestly of the opinion that the stuff i had in my paradigm previously was sorta vapid and kind of worthless because it doesn't really get the gist of how i evaluate debates. i'm not really terribly dogmatic -- there are things i'm worse at evaluating than others (i didn't really go for kant or levinas a ton in hs) but i'm definitely able to evaluate these debates objectively and have voted for things i'm less knowledgable about vs. things i've written papers on. make good strategic decisions, focus on making arguments that have a claim/warrant/impact, and do NOT do things that are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist. these things will probably cause you to win lots of debates in front of me and will make my life easy.

i also tend to be slower to the uptake on spreading super blippy / fast analytics esp if they're not on the doc -- i promise im trying to keep up with you but if it gets to a point where my flow is incoherent jumble you should anticipate that the rfd won't be to your liking. sorry.

same as ld stuff - i like this event more but i think y'all should anticipate me being more receptive to theory than the average policy judge since i have to evaluate it much much more frequently. heads up.

speaks

i had a lot of stuff here but again it was verbose and annoying and i assume none of y'all really gleaned much from it. here's how i assign speaks:

1. strategy/decision making + round vision

2. efficiency + knowledge

3. funny stuff you say and do + thing that make the debate more interesting

that's about it. a 29 from me means i think you should be doing good work in elims of a bid tournament and i think i cap at about a 27.5 although i have gotten trigger happy and given 26.(high) for pf debates that make my head hurt. i don't really give out 30s a ton and i definitely regret a lot of the 29.5+ speaks i've given out but its all good.

Skye Spindler The Harker School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 3:16 AM CDT

***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging both trad policy arguments and Ks.

I have now been coaching for close to 2 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN.

I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Top 3 Notes!

1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…

- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears

- please send out analytics if you are at all willing

- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech

- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow

- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.

2. When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

3. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

Specifics!

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: Unless otherwise proven, extinction will indeed outweigh. Sure, fiat is illusory, and scenario planning can be good, but again, what is the educational impact/value to those arguments? Framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there.

K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.

Ks, general:I will not just grant you ontology or your theory of power or what have you. You still have to...provide warrants for it... No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments, I earnestly attempt to keep my thoughts and assumptions based in the debate that happened, and I believe I am successful in that. Letting bias influence me is not good for anyone's education. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing----------------------------x--Delgado 92

Try or die------------------------------------x-----What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Sriya Subramanian Proof School 2 rounds

***Please slow down a bit, especially in later speeches***

Hi! I'm Sriya (she/her) and I did LD at Dulles. I mostly did lay debate and qualled to TFA state, but I did national circuit debate senior year and cleared at 1 tournament. I mostly read larp and theory, but I've responded to Ks, phil, tricks, etc. I'll try my best to evaluate to evaluate any type of argument, but I am not familiar with most literature bases and am not very good at flowing spreading. You can read the types of arguments I say I'm bad at evaluating (I won't dock your speaks), but I will most likely get lost. Please put me on the email chain: subramanian.sriya@gmail.com

Overall: You can spread as long as you send the doc, but you should somewhat slow down for analytics and things not in the doc and paint a very clear ballot story. Be nice if you are debating a novice, please tell me if you need to stop the round, explain your arguments very clearly and in simple terms, signpost, weigh asap, and collapse. I default yes 2nr/2ar weighing, presumption negates, permissibility affirms, and comparative worlds>truth testing. I will try to be tab, but I will only vote on arguments with a clear warrant. I won't vote on morally bad arguments or ad homs.

Quick Prefs:

Trad/lay- 1

Larp- 3/4

Theory- 2

K- 3/4

Phil-3/4

Tricks- 4

Larp- Assume I know nothing about the topic, explain any topic specific jargon, and do evidence comparison. I'm not good at judging politics DAs or complicated CPs and will likely get confused. I'm not very good at judging larp at a high level.

Phil- I am somewhat familiar with Kant, Prag, Hobbes, and GCB; Levinas and Wynter to a lesser extent. I am probably ok with a larp v phil round but not phil v phil. Explain your syllogism very clearly like you are talking to a 5 year old. Explain exactly where and very clearly why you are winning your framework. If you go for tjfs, that will be a lot easier for me to evaluate lol.

K- I have some very basic understanding of queerpess, disability pess, afropess, set col, and cap. If you read a K, please explain your theory of power very clearly like you're talking to a 5 year old and tell me exactly how to evaluate the rd/how the k interacts with your opponent's positions. I am probably ok with a larp v K round but not K v K. I most likely won't vote for implicit clash.

phil vs k- I will most likely be lost. Explain very clearly your ballot story, how your framework interacts with the K's theory of power and ROB, and exactly where I should vote.

K aff vs T-fw- I am ok at evaluating this. Weigh between the 2 layers and explain any arguments on why your K takes out theory clearly. I am fine with you going 1 off T-fw.

Performance- I have never read performance nor had it read against me, so I am not the best judge for this.

Theory- Read as many shells as you want, I'm fine with friv theory but I won't vote on outside of round violations other than disclosure. I am familiar with nebel (if you go for semantics explain it very clearly and in simple terms), t-fw, spec status, afc, disclosure (round reports, open source, highlighting all fine, provide screenshots) etc. I default dtd, competing interps, and no rvi. I am not that good at flowing so please slow down, signpost, and weigh.

Tricks- I will definitely miss stuff. Explain and paradoxes/presumption and permissibility triggers clearly. Don't read them vs a novice. I am not good at judging this type of debate.

Ev ethics- Please make this a theory argument or independent voter.

Speaks- I will try to average 28.5. I will boost your speaks if you make some creative/meme arguments and win on them, don't rely on a doc a lot, make me laugh, extemp some unique shell, collapse clearly and make the round easy to evaluate, and/or make good strategic decisions.

Feel free to ask me any questions after the round or about my paradigm, have fun!

Asher Towner Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 3, 2023 at 5:27 PM EDT

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Currently coaching the LD debaters at Canyon Crest Academy. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Moira Turner The Harker School 5 rounds

Leah Villanueva Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 8, 2021 at 1:08 PM PDT

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

How I Evaluate & Structure Arguments:

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

[Online Debates]

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

pre-pandemic paradigm particularities

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Lindsey Williams The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM PDT

TLDR: Tech over truth. Go as fast as you want, but be clear. Tell me how to weigh. Extensions should include the original warrant. I'm good for LARP & policy arguments, I can evaluate K debate, and I am probably not your pick for a performance/non-T aff. Don't be rude to your opponent.

Cheat sheet:
LARP: 1-2
Theory: 1-2
Phil: 1
K: 3
Other: 3-5

I'd like to be part of the email chain, if there is one: lindseywilliams411@gmail.com

GEN: I competed on the circuit for 4 years and went to the TOC in LD. I currently coach for Harker. I'm most comfortable with policy-style arguments and LARP fare, along with theory.

-I default to an offense-defense paradigm. This is the only way I've found to judge debates that both makes sense and is fair, so if you don't want me to use it, you'll have to explain how else I should approach the round.

-True evidence ethics claims are not theory arguments. If you genuinely believe that your opponent has committed an evidence ethics violation, you need to tell me in those terms. The debate will end, the claim will be evaluated, and if there are tournament procedures for EE disputes, I'll initiate them.

-Disclosure is good and should be encouraged. I debated for a small school. I attended multiple tournaments without teammates or a coach. I could talk at length about why this is the best practice for small schools and lone wolf debaters. (Also, disclosure theory is boring, as are debates that come down to it.)

LARP: This was most of my circuit repertoire. I'm extremely comfortable judging these debates. Notes:

-The perm is a test of competition, not a change in advocacy. If you're going to kick something, it should be clean (concede defense on the link).

-Not going for something is not the same as kicking it.

T: I like a good T interp. As with all theory, the abuse story should be tailored to the shell and the violation; hurling around generic blocks about limits and ground will always be less compelling than a cohesive explanation of how your interp specifically encourages substantive debate. Notes:

-I tend to believe that topicality is a true argument. Do with that what you will.

-Someday, in a better place, in a better time, I dream of a world where a debater correctly explains genericity.

Theory: I have a decently low threshold for theory, with the exception of obviously frivolous stuff (e.g. highlighting theory, font theory, etc. — but don't stress too much about what "frivolous" means here, trust your gut). Notes:

-I soft default to competing interps > reasonability, no RVIs > RVIs, and fairness > education. By "default" I mean that in a circumstance where neither debater says any of these words, this is where I fall. It's not a hard preference.

-I won't vote on spikes where the warrant only appears in the last speech. The abuse story has to be delineated in the actual shell.

-I'm a pretty hard sell on RVIs. For one thing, I think going for them is usually a bad strategic move; I'm also disposed against them on theoretical grounds. Still, I'll hear the argument.

-Specific articulations of the nature of the abuse strengthen the shell. The best carded standards in the world won't really help if you can't point to who or what component of debate is being injured by the violation.

-I will not vote on 2AR theory unless there is something truly reprehensible in the 2NR. To me, this is the same thing as judge intervention, and my threshold for it is accordingly high.

K: I've encountered most standard lit on the circuit. I appreciate a K that's well-written and well-researched, and not just the same literature being recut and recycled for the umpteenth time. Notes:

-I need a clear explanation of the alt. I have to know where the solvency is coming from, and to what extent it's working.

-Mindset shift alts probably aren't abusive so much as they make for an uphill solvency debate.

-The K can be leveled against theory, but I default to theory > K unless the debater tells me otherwise. This is another soft default.

Tricks: no

Performance/kritikal affs: Fine, but please give me explicit instructions on how you want me to weigh it in the round. I have a LARP brain and I think in terms of offense/defense, so telling me how your interpretive framework can fit into that paradigm will make both of our lives easier.

Speaks: I average around a 28.5 for any given tournament, and I go up or down from there. I tend to give points for good strategy and smart decision-making in the late speeches. I don't disclose speaks.

If you have any questions, shoot me an email or approach me before the round.

Sadaf Zahoor Milpitas High School 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom:

College Prep LD Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges