hi! i'm nikki, and i am a varsity pf debater at the nueva school going into her fourth year of debate at nueva and her fifth year of debate overall. add me to your email chain nikagra@nuevaschool.org

i will be a flow judge, I can flow pretty much everything but if you start spreading I won't pick everything up, and I don't accept speech docs for crazy fast speeches. if I miss it then I miss it and it's not on the flow.

pf:

- defense is sticky but only if you extend the tag and argument

- dropped arguments have 100% probability if you extend and weigh

- collapse, weigh, and frontline in your summary. this includes extending your full argument (link-warrant-impact) in summary and final focus to give me something to weigh on

- time yourself, I don't pay attention to that

- weigh weigh weigh!

- i won't flow cross but i will listen to it.

- i won't look at evidence unless you ask me to

- I will drop teams for homophobic/sexist/ableist/racist/etc remarks and tank your speaks. no exceptions.

i will disclose my decision. don't be mean and have fun!

other types:

I have minimal experience with parli and no experience with LD or speech types (other than impromptu) but I hold most of the things in the pf paradigm true here. if I can't here it I won't flow it, don't spread, weigh, and be clear.

reeceaguilar7@gmail.com

If you can't beat the argument, you generally deserve to lose.

(I'll never insert the reading of an argument I happen to know into the debate for you. This practice always irritated me when certain people did or encouraged this. I'm not supposed to make arguments, you are.)

Very tech over truth. However, the less intuitive an argument is, the more you have to do to explain why it matters and why you win.

Generally I'm fine with anything, but I place a strong emphasis on clarity and explanation. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, explain what it is and how it effects the outcome of the round. The more doors you close in final rebuttals, the better your chances are of winning my ballot.

Order in Which To Pref Me:

1. Planless Aff v Topicality
2. K v K
3. Plan v K
4. Policy v Policy (Despite having experience in this, I don't believe I do enough traditional research to be the best judge)

Final Notes:

1. I'm more inclined to vote on theory arguments than the average judge. This just means I think I'm less biased against these arguments than others. If someone won most of the substance but lost on condo or dropped vague alts I would not hesitate to drop the debater(s).
2. Clarity > Speed
3. Impact Comparison and Solvency Mechanisms matter
4. I'm super attentive to the flow, and I strive to minimize judge intervention.
5. I've voted on arguments I don't believe in plenty of times.
6. I have zero issues voting on suspect impact turn arguments if they are won.
7. Clarity is more Important than Speed
8. In Clash of civs debates, it helps to say what debate looks like in relation to an interpretation of the topic.
9. In Clash of civs debates, impact turning t requires either an explanation of what my ballot or what counter model of debate can do.
10. In clash of civs debates, neg loses when there is a poor articulation of an impact or effort to neutralize aff offense. Aff loses when there is poor explanation of an alternative model of debate or how the ballot changes what we do.
11. In K v K debates, presumption is under utilized --- the less you link the less you probably solve. The neg needs to explain clear distinctions between the aff's tactic and/or theorizations and what the alt does or does not do.
12. In K v K debates, I welcome debates on other procedurals like aff condo bad, vagueness, and various spec arguments that are designed to at least limit what the aff does and secure link to neg positions.
13. In K v Policy aff debates, the neg needs to nullify the aff's offense. Use an alt solvency, framework, root cause, or impact framing argument depending on what your skillset is.
14. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff needs to win that talking about the aff or that the hypothetical implementation of the aff does something important that we can't have if I vote neg.
15. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff can win a permutation, though it is probably dependent on the design of the argument. Pay close attention to the link arguments and anything else that creates or forces competition.
16. In K v Policy aff debates, I find teams are racing towards the middle and are fearful of impact turning link arguments (state good, heg good, cap good, managerialism good). If you are good at this I say debate at your skillset.
17. I will not initially judge kick, but if you make a good argument for why I should I probably will do so.
18. No need for too much hostility and confrontation.
19. I would rather not judge debates about things that didn't happen in the debate.

Background: I have coached at USC, Damien, Loyola, and now I do K research for MSU. It's worth mentioning that unlike most people who say they are flex, I actually was. I was part of an NDT Elims team that only went for Ks (UNLV AK) and an NDT Elims team that was primarily about policy arguments (UNLV AW). If I'm in the back, you have a wide range of options.

Updated for Western JV Novice Championship 3/10/2022:

I am a parent judge an

d I will be taking notes.

What I like:

Voter issues: Tell me why you should win the round in clear and concise reasons. I don't need you to repeat over and over that climate change will be resolved through this one fantastic piece of evidence. I want you to tell me why it's an issue for me to vote for you. For example, "A key voter in this round is on my climate change argument because it solves back for the impacts on both sides."

Weighing: Give me terminalized impacts. Tell me what poverty leads to, don't just leave it at 100 million people in poverty. Why is bad quality of life a terrible impact? While I definitely use truth over tech, I want to see you fully flesh out why something is bad instead of giving a 50% explanation. It makes the round easier for me to judge and that should be your goal. Make the round easy for me to give a decision.

Reasonable Arguments: This effectively cuts extinction/nuclear war scenarios that are poorly fleshed out. If you are making arguments in immense magnitudes, then please make the logic behind that reasonable. I'm not going to buy that a single asteroid collision is going to somehow result in nuclear war without the proper backing/uniqueness levels (why is this specific scenario going to work? what outside factors impact this?). For example, you giving a specific timeframe as to when your argument is going to happen or an external factor like COVID or global warming tipping points will change the way I look at an argument dramatically.

What I don't like:

Speed: Absolutely no spreading. I genuinely believe there is no real-world value in spreading as it does not enhance argumentation and makes the debate inaccessible. Especially since there are novices competing at this tournament, I will be very unhappy if you choose to spread or speed through your speech at rates I cannot follow. I will not take into account arguments I cannot understand due to speed. This is extremely important because I cannot give a fair decision if I don't understand what you're saying. I will say "clear" twice (meaning you need to slow down) before I stop listening to the speech. This is my biggest pet peeve especially since we are doing online debate and it can be difficult to understand even conversational levels of speed due to connection issues, etc.

Theory: Not a fan and my threshold for evaluating such arguments is very high. Only if there is actual abuse in the round will I take into account theory for my RFD. When it comes to disclosure theory, I don't care for it on this level of debate. You should get used to thinking on your feet and especially if your opponents are not spreading, there is immense educational value in coming up with arguments on the spot. However, I would still like to see speech docs being sent before you start your speech via an email chain (tkdcity@hotmail.com) or file share.

Plans/Counterplans/PICs: Debate should be accessible to everyone and at the novice/JV level on the very least, I think one of the best ways to close the divide between big and small school debaters is through staying resolutional. It's unfair for a small school debater with very little resources to be unable to answer a hyper niche part of the resolution because it's not necessarily something they can prep for (one person versus fifteen).

Delaying evidence: You should be able to produce your evidence for your opponents on time. If you start taking three or four minutes to look for a singular piece of evidence, I'm going to take that out of consideration because it's ridiculous to spend your whole prep time to try and send a card. It should take only a couple of seconds for you to show a fully represented piece of evidence.

Debate jargon: There's so many terms flying around the community, so please simplify them to make it easy for me to judge the round. Explain what the name of an argument means and what it does to your opponent's argument.

Being rude: This should be very obvious, but given the exciting nature of debate and how easy it can be to get carried away, I really want to see some respect between you and your opponent. Just because there's a lot of clash over an argument doesn't give you an excuse to be disrespectful or rude. I will dock speaks if you are overly aggressive/hostile to your opponent.

Hi :)

I have ample experience in high-school debate, Lincoln-Douglas specifically. I haven't competed in any other event, but I have enough experience to understand and flow almost any argument you could make. Please refer to the following for more insight on one specifically I look for in a round:

1. Organization/Flowing: Firstly, please give off time road-maps, time yourself, and most importantly signpost :) I can't quite flow if I don't know where to put an argument. Additionally, having voice inflection at the right time helps me flow the most important parts. Also, make sure you come to the round with a pre-flow ready. Also, spreading and speed are fine so long as I can still understand you and there is vocal inflection, ie. I can understand the most important arguments and get your cards/ taglines. If you aren't being clear, or perhaps going faster than I can judge, I will indicate it by using the "raise-hand" function.

2. General Preferences: Please interact with your opponent's arguments. I cannot stress how important this is. Do not simply reiterate the constrcutive. Additionally, I would love to see emotion in your speeches. Monotone and winning on the flow is great, but sometimes a more persuasive and pathos-rich narrative is just stronger. That being said, incorporating pathos into your speeches, especially voters, and of course vocal inflection will benefit you in this round. Lastly, clear voters at the end of a round are a must. Tell me how and why to vote :)

3. Lincoln-Douglas: All my experience is in LD so I have no difficulty judging well here. Roadmaps, clash, and clear/strong key voting issues are all good things to have in your debate. Lastly, I am more than familiar with the current topics. Incorporating the framework debate into the round in a way that is significant in terms of me writing the ballot is something I love to see ie. don't just tell me why your opponent's framework is problematic, but why yours is better and what this means in terms weighing. The best thing is if I can almost copy and paste your voters onto the ballot, and your voters match what should be in my RFD. All traditional arguments are fine.

4. Other events: Without much experience in other events in PF, congress, etc, all I can really say is making compelling arguments. Refer to the general preferences and see what may apply to your preferences from what is put under LD :). Needless to say, I won't be familiar with these topics, so make sure you explain your arguments and any debate lingo for that topic thoroughly. Also, don't drop important arguments.

5. Here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds

A. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

B. Warrants

C. Impact Calc (a worlds comparison too as a bonus)

D. Turns :)

E. (Though this won't heavily impact the ballot) A strong cross

F. Clash

6. Here’s a list of things that make me go :/ in rounds

A. Don't be rude offensive, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, you get the idea. Debate is a way to share your ideas, but you must do so in a respectful manner

B. Being rude during cross

I prefer a logical argument with voice that is understandable. Your ability to present convincingly your structure, arguments and cross will earn you speaker points. 

Hi! I'm Iris (any pronouns) - Harvard-Westlake LD (2019-23), TOC qual 2x, mainly read policy args.

I coach with DebateDrills. This URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form.

For email chain (or any questions): irischen2536 at gmail dot com (fileshare/speechdrop also fine)

harvard update - I will try my best to evaluate phil/theory rounds without intervening. Speaks won't be affected as long as you keep things somewhat reasonable.

topic update (jf24) - I don't think t-no subsets (in means throughout / region means entire region) is the best arg - you're probably better off reading t-substantial or t-military presence

--

General

I (try to) think about debate most similarly to Ava, Sam, and Cora.

Defaults: T > theory > everything else, competing interps, no RVI, DTA unless I can't (T/condo/disclosure), comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption = side of least change

Safety (misgendering, accessibility, etc): I'd prefer for you to email me or interrupt the round rather than reading a theory shell

I close my eyes sometimes while flowing, not asleep just trying to listen better

--

Policy!

Impact turns / process/adv counterplans specific to the aff <3

Judge kick if the 2NR says so – arguments against it must be introduced in the 1AR

Inserting re-highlightings is good

2NR cards must be directly responsive to 1AR arguments

Generally won't read cards unless someone tells me to or the debate is irresolvable

Decently involved in topic prep/probably have an ok amount of background knowledge

--

Kritiks

Cap/IR Ks/set col = ok, anything else = I will prob be confused. Mitigate the risk of case.

Not a super big fan of the idea that the ballot/my decision is a referendum on identity or moral correctness

Non-T affs: probably biased in favor of framework (fairness/clash > movements) – presumption is also good

--

Topicality

Debate over definitions in the literature are much more interesting than "haha nebel 19 go brrrrr” – that being said, if you have a semantics-based T argument contextual to the resolution’s wording and explain it correctly I will be very happy

Like: well-written offensive/defensive caselists, fleshed out descriptions of how the topic should look, size-of-internal-link weighing, good definitions comparison

Dislike: education outweighs fairness/fairness outweighs education, 12-point AT PICs that gets progressively more incoherent, treating semantics and pragmatics as if they're entirely separate concepts, "JUDGE THERE ARE 512 AFFS!!!," "interp the aff may not spec and the neg may not read PICs"

--

Theory

Topic-based spec and reasonable disclosure args are fine – most other things will probably annoy me/I have a relatively low tolerance for nonsense (obv situation dependent – if it's the cleanest option or abuse is egregious, go ahead)

Ev ethics as a shell is fine, I will eval based on NSDA/tournament rules if you stake the round

Logic is an underrated standard

Competing interps/reasonability are about the counter-interp, normsetting/in-round abuse are about the specific instance

Things that are not arguments: "affirming/negating is harder [doesn't explain why that justifies your model]," "they can't make X combination of args because it's hard to respond to :(((," "they can't contest X part of my 1AC/1NC because defending it is hard :(((," eval X after Y, RVIs on T, most "independent voting issues," 3 second long paragraph theory

--

Phil

Don't run away from clash

Plan affs / counterplans with unique philosophical offense are quite cool

Ks of philosophy can be very interesting but should present an alternative that does not boil down to "consult X minority about ethics" – you will simply lose to the perm like every other consult CP

Would prefer skep/permissibility to be leveraged as a framework justification (X fwk triggers skep so it's wrong) rather than a reason to affirm/negate because there are no obligations

If reading util and going for extinction outweighs, be sure that your ev substantiates an extinction impact

--

Speaker points

Will adjust based on tournament context (bid level, geographic location, etc)

Being funny, knowing your arguments well, strategic vision, being clear, good CX (but not aggressive/mean), and trolling/making fun of bad arguments will boost speaks

Note about docs - there is nothing inherently wrong with them (in fact, they are sometimes necessary and good e.g. for explanations of dense phil/critical arguments) – however, if I can tell that you are clearly reading off a doc for the entire 2NR (probably because it's my third time hearing the same speech word for word), I am not going to assign speaks as if you were the one who came up with the arguments

--

Debate is a game – play to win, be kind and don't take it too seriously :)

I am a parent judge and new to PF judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

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.

Hi everyone! I am a parent who has judged PF tournaments for over a year. I have a few requirements and preferences:

1) No spreading - If I cannot understand you I cannot take your argument into consideration.

2) Be respectful - Don't get angry or yell at your opponents. Don't say anything offensive.

Good luck!

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

I'm a parent , Please speak slowly and clearly.

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!

Overview

• Call me “judge” in-round, thanks

• Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.

• Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.

• Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

• Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.

• There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.

• An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.

• Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

• Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.

• I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.

• Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.

2nd year biology student at UCLA, 4 years HS LD.

Run whatever you feel comfortable running, with the obvious exceptions. I do want to be on the email chain. Ask any questions before the round. In the case of no framing, I default to offense/defense. A proper analysis will be given more weight than simply reading a card. Line by line argumentation please. Be civil and communicate well. If you aren’t communicating well, then your arguments are incoherent.

Questions and email chain: dishayadav756@gmail.com

Online Debate- I suffer from chronic migraines and have auditory issues. Something about the additional audio noises that arise from the computer messes with me. I cannot keep up with spreading, and will not be able to provide a fair assessment of the round if you do. Please be respectful of this request. Prioritize clarity over an influx of arguments. I really cannot stand to hear you constantly gasping or taking those large breaths. I'll say clear once, if you still do not fix your speed or comprehensibility, I'm done flowing. If you would prefer me to raise my hand instead of saying clear, inform me before the round.

I prefer traditional debates, just easier to keep up with and a lost art.

Affs- I would prefer the affirmative to follow the direction of the resolution. Planless affirmatives are absolutely fine; don’t make the mistake of solely extending aff cards and not explaining the solvency mechanism. Kritikal affs are not my favorite, but I will vote on them. That being said, if your K does not have a plan text that is relevent to the resolution, you will not get my ballot.

Disads and CPS- Love a good DA, they're won through the link chain. Bury the affirmative with quality argumentation and concrete evidence. You need to explain the casual chain, there’s no disad without the internal links. Counterplans have to be functionally competitive. I believe counterplans are an effective means of testing out the affirmative’s plan through competitive policy. PICs, conditional, international fiat, states counterplans are all fine.

Kritiks- Yes, I’ll vote on them. Don’t assume I’m familiar with your literature. Ensure it’s specific to this round and make the link chain clear. Don’t be vague have a well-defined alt. If the alt is to reject the aff, explain how that accomplishes anything. Impact calc. If I look confused or annoyed, I probably am. Fix that, explain to me clearly what happens when we make policies that make this wrong assumption.

Theory- I’m not voting on frivolous theory, don’t waste my time or your opponents. In terms of topicality, only run it if there’s a good reason. Don’t just use it as a time skew, make sure all the information you give is specific to this round. Warrant your claims, provide examples.

I love rounds that have direct clash and completely cover the flow. Have concrete link chains and weigh your impacts. Run what you know and clarity above all.

I have no tolerance for derogatory comments, discriminatory actions, making fun of debater’s limitations, etc. An immediate loss, I will refuse to listen any longer and walk out.