Rounds on the topic: 12

Tournaments I’ve judged at (2018-2019):

Greenhill

Local Utah Tournaments

Affiliation: Rowland Hall

General Notes:

1. Yes, I want to be on the email chain madisonbark@gmail.com
2. Generally, I flow on paper.
3. I will try my best throughout the debate to make a fair decision and treat both teams with respect. I will expect you all to do the same when it comes to talking to each other and talking to me.
4. Prep should end when the email is sent.
5. Don't be mean. It’s okay to explain why the other team messed up but I’m not persuaded by “that was the worst 1AR I’ve ever heard” type comments.
6. Speak clearly and don’t spread through your blocks. If I can’t flow you then I can’t vote for your arguments.
7. I prefer depth over breadth.
8. In the 2AR and 2NR spend time on the things you want me to evaluate and vote on. Write my ballot for me in your 2AR/2NR.

General Arguments

1. K Affs – Need to have some type of advocacy

2. Performance – I’m not going to penalize a team for “dropping it” because there was no clear definition of what it meant.

3. Framework/T-USFG: My preferred strategy against K Affs along with one other argument that is a viable 2NR.

4. Kritiks – Should not morph into different kritiks after the 1NC. Advocacies can’t change in the middle of the debate. I will hold the 1NC to whatever their alternative was. I like new page overviews on the kritik. If it’s one off kritik help me figure out what you’re answering in the neg block, it isn’t as clear as you think.

5. Topicality – Tech over truth. Even if the aff might be reasonably topical I would rather vote on a team that explains why their interpretation is best for the topic.

6. Counterplans – I will judge kick them if you tell me to.

7. Specific Arguments I do not like. (As I judge more rounds I will add more to this list):

a. Agamben

b. Death Good

Substance

DA’s: My ideal 2NR against a policy aff is usually a DA or a CP and DA. Be tricky and smart about the arguments you make. Keep your evidence as updated as possible. Clearly explain the internal link, I’ve seen way too many politics debates where it’s like “republicans win the house and then extinction from nuclear war” and it’s just very unclear how we get there and I don’t like that.

CP’s: I’m sympathetic to CP theory but it’s kind of unlikely I’ll vote on it unless you spend some time there and it’s just conceded or if it is a blatantly “cheaty” cp. That being said I like tricky counterplans because I think it shows that you’ve really thought out your strategy against the affirmative.

Theory: I don’t really like theory that much but I will vote on it. I find international fiat theory and other things like that kind of annoying. I do not like things being made voters for no coherent reason whatsoever. Be judicial in the amount of theory you read and the things you make voting issues. I won’t vote for something super blippy if it’s at the top of the 2AR/2NR for one second. If you're going for theory I think you should go all in and commit to it as a strategy. I don't mind if you go for it especially if they dropped it because it makes my decision really easy but for me to vote on it you need to spend time on it.

Topicality: I like topicality. I’m willing to vote neg on T if they win the T debate regardless of whether or not the aff is logically topical. I really like T debates and I think that it’s one of the best parts about debating the topic. If you just want to throw t into the 1NC to make them answer it but have no intention of going for it that’s fine but if they scandalously under cover it just go for it. I hold a pretty firm line on no blatantly new answers in the 2AR, especially on T.

K Affs: I would prefer the aff have an advocacy statement. I'm not going to say that I'll never vote for an aff without an advocacy statement but based on my past record I am more sympathetic to framework. I have not historically been a huge fan of performances especially if they don't come with some substantive explanation of why the performance is necessary to your advocacy. The aff should not change significantly in the 2AC. I am much less likely to vote on framework if you clearly illustrate how your aff connects to the topic. Be tricky with framework. The key to winning a framework debate running a K Aff (to me) is adequately defending why the type of education you create is valuable.

Framework: I really like framework, I think one of the best parts about debate is debating how the game should be played. The amount I lean towards framework really depends on the execution of the affirmative. I am very sympathetic if the aff has no relation to the topic or if the aff is intentionally vague and changes throughout the debate in order to prevent you from meaningfully answering it. I am very persuaded by procedural fairness and TVA arguments.

K’s: I don’t know a lot about philosophy so if you want me to vote for you I need an explanation of your argument. I hate when kiritks become something blatantly different than the 1NC in the block. I prefer more concrete kritiks over postmodernism. Don't expect me to have any understanding of what you're saying if you don't explain it well. I hate giving an RFD where a team is clearly frustrated about not getting my ballot and the primary reason they didn't get it is because they got so lost in the jargon of whatever philosophy they were reading that they forgot to connect it to the debate.

Speaking Tips

1. Don't spread through blocks.

2. Speed is not the end all be all. It’s good to be fast but not good to be un-flowable. Good debaters are fast or clear, great debaters are fast and clear. Be both.

3. Organize your speeches. The easier you make it for me to understand how you see the debate the easier time I will have voting for you.

4. Points

a. 27 and below: I didn’t like something you did in the debate enough to dock your speaks for it. You did something offensive or mean. I will talk about it after the round, your coach might hear about it after the round. It may have caused you to lose the debate or just for me to be upset.

b. 27-28: your speaking style, clarity, or execution in the debate had significant issues.

c. 28-29: You spoke well and I expect you to do well in the tournament. There were some small issues but overall I think you are a good debater.

d. 29 and up: I expect you to break and or possibly win a speaker award. You killed it. I was impressed.

Other philosophies of people who influence my view on debate:

1. Mike Shackelford

2. Joey Amiel

3. David Walter Bernstein

First Time Parent Judge :) Please be civil and respectful when debating.

I debated in DFW for 5 years.

I did mostly LD, but I've also done PF, CX, and World Schools.

I was mostly a LARP debater, however I did use plenty of critical lit as well so I understand most critical cases just be aware that I may not understand them as well as I do other types of cases so you may have to do a bit more work but if your willing to do that then feel free to run whatever you want.

After several years of argument with other debaters I have been convinced that speed is bad so do not spread, you can go fast but the goal should be to learn come level of communication skills not be a weird kid who can talk at 350wpm. Feel free to sit while debating as well.

Feel free to run any arg, however I tend to not like frivolously theory. That being said, if you can make a convincing argument for why the abuse took place I'll vote on it. However, if your just using theory in order to win, your probably just a bad debater and I'm not going to vote you up for that. I ALSO ASSUME RVI'S (I'm even putting it in all caps so you have no excuse to not know this.)

Let me know what you want me to vote on so the round is easy for me.

Both sided will either get 29.5 or 30 speaks unless there is something unacceptable said during the round (for example: open or blatant racism, sexism, homophobia towards an opponent)

Please remember that cross examination is not binding

If you have any questions regarding anything on here feel free to ask at the start of the round.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

TL;DR I am comfortable with any and all arguments as long as they are well-articulated, impacted out, and clearly framed in the context of the round; run your disads, your CPs, your kritiks, your theory, etc. I have no specific topic knowledge this year. I do my best to vote off the flow and limit judge intervention. I am sensitive to how marginalized identities are treated within the debate space.

In general:

- I will try to keep my camera on as often as possible.

- I flow on my laptop, and while I'm comfortable with speed, I appreciate slowing down on tags and increased attention to clarity in analytics, especially those not included in the doc.

- It is especially important to me that an inclusive environment is fostered. Your speaks and the outcome of the round can, and will, be affected by intolerant or violent language and/or behaviors. Understand that debate is a space that was inherently not made for POC, femmes, and other marginalized identities, and as a judge I believe it my responsibility to intervene if a round re-entrenches any trend of exclusion.

- In terms of speaks, I reward clarity, organization, efficiency of language, and quality of explanation.

- I'm not a fan of excessive neg strats. I do not think it is ever necessary to run eight off with four disads and three counterplans and a theory shell, and I'm going to be pretty pissy if your off-case positions hit the double digits. You can go ahead, but I probably won't love it.

- Adapt to your opponent. If a team/an opponent is clearly new to the event or traditional, I don't want to see high theory run. There's no way to have a good debate if half of the round fundamentally does not understand the arguments being made. You can have clash by engaging with your opponent in the manner they're debating. If you choose to disregard this, I'll vote off the flow, but your speaks will suffer for it.

- In general, I am comfortable with any and all forms of argument as long as they are well-articulated and contextualized in the context of the round, including but not limited to DAs/CPs, kritiks, theory, performance args. Debate however you think will allow you to make it the best round you can while also respecting your opponents.

- I have no specific topic knowledge this year.

- Please include me on the email chain: cindyphan@college.harvard.edu

More general things:

- I appreciate it when debaters time themselves.

- Love signposting and off-time roadmaps.

- Tech > Truth (as much as is reasonable— I will absolutely not be convinced by impact turns like "racism good" even if it is completely dropped throughout the entire round. Likewise, an outdated PTX disad can flow uncontested, but I won't be voting on evidence that was specific to the 2016 election. But I try my best to limit judge intervention, I will not be doing work for you or your opponents, and I will be voting off the flow.)

- Rebuttals are not just an opportunity to restate and regurgitate. IMO, rebuttals make or break the round.

- I did policy/CX three years of high school on both the local and national circuits, except for one year where I took a hiatus to try out local circuit, traditional-leaning LD (but my policy background makes me very amenable to progressive LD, so don't let that stop you). I am a fourth year out (graduated high school in '20, currently Harvard '24).

- You need offense.

Topicality:

Topicality can be pretty compelling for me, and again I will vote on the flow, but I don't like voting for a poorly chosen T interp, or one that was obviously thrown in to be a time skew and then just chosen in the 2NR because the aff had the least amount of offense/defense on that flow. I often do buy reasonability.

Theory:

Go for it, but it's uniquely important to be both clear and organized in theory debate, because very quickly it can devolve into something messy unless you do clear line-by-line and impact your claims out. What is your model of debate and why is it superior? Why is your opponent's inferior? It's also important that you can demonstrate tangible harms to me — if you can't prove that to me, I won't vote on it.

Framework/Kritiks:

If done well, I literally adore framework debate. I have no issues if in the rebuttals the round ends up becoming mostly framework debate — but make sure to either handle case or explain to me why you don't need to handle case (e.g. framing that if you win this framework debate, you win the round point blank). As long as there is a basic rundown of standards in the constructives I'm good; I'm not too picky on the technicalities of extending every single one through.

In terms of kritikal theory, run what you want to run, but I do prefer kritiks that link specifically into the aff and/or topic as opposed to a generic one. I have a decent amount of experience in K debate, so don't hold yourself back on my account. Accessibility of literature is important to me. Even if your opponent has never heard of your author before, you should give them enough to go off of that they can adequately respond.

Disads:

I love disads, but they better be airtight — especially PTX disads, for which evidence can become outdated alarmingly fast. Still, do it well, and make sure your uniqueness is up-to-date, and these are very compelling arguments. A few well-articulated, well-linked, and well-developed disads >>> a bunch of shallow, generic disads thrown out as a time skew.

Counterplans:

I have experience with those counterplans that crop up time and time again in different topics (delay, conditions, multi-actor, consult), but I'm not super familiar with the topic this year, so if you're using a pretty specific agency/mechanism, I want you to be explicit in what it is and how it works. Clear articulation of net benefits is very important here. Make sure your solvency advocate is clear. Just like how it is the burden of the aff to prove that their plan/advocacy is net better than the squo, it is the burden of the negative (if they have a non-status quo advocacy) to prove that their advocacy is net better than the aff one. If fiat is involved, you're going to have to do a little bit of work before I vote on it. On the aff, if you think their CP hurts aff ground (i.e. plan-inclusive counterplans are popular here), then don't be afraid to make theory arguments on the CP flow.

Case:

The case flow is very important and in a lot of cases (heh) is the center of the debate. As aff, you should be making it a priority to defend your case and be on the case flow, because this is usually what you can leverage against your opponent's off-case positions. As neg, you should be tying your disads, CPs, etc. back to the case (as said before, I find arguments like "link turns the case" or "disad outweighs and turns the case" compelling), and you should also not be underestimating the power of on-case arguments like internal link turns, solvency deficits, etc.

(LD) Tricks:

I'll vote for them but I won't like doing it.

I'm a former PF and Lincoln Douglas debater! I graduated high school just two years ago, so I get the stress! Don't be anxious and have fun with rounds :)

Event Paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas: Speak clearly! I do place emphasis on value and value kriterion, but I do care more about the actual arguments you make. Unless it is explicitly said and proven within the round that V and VK are high voting factors, I don't usually focus too much on them. Also, not everything in LD needs evidence. LD is cool in that you can use analogies, make value-based arguments, reference history, etc. so explicit evidence isn't always necessary. If you're planning on using Kritiques, make sure it's fully explained, don't assume I know anything.

Public Forum: Some debaters have the tendency to try to cram all the rounds' arguments into the 2-minutes summary and final focus speeches. Just narrow down the big points and talk at length about each of them. Don't speak over each other during crossfire and be courteous :)

For all debates, you can talk fast but please don't spread. You can talk as fast as possible, and I'll be able to gage what you're saying, but please don't get to the point where full words aren't being said. In addition, I don't flow cross-ex. If anything comes up during cross that you want to argue, make sure to bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it.

Lastly, make sure to respect each other. We're here to learn and grow as debaters, so please don't ruin that experience for one another.

All in all, have fun! Excited to judge you all :)

It's been a long time since I've been in the debate world. I did debate all through high school and undergrad at the U. I coached at Murray High for a few years, and helped out at West High and Hunter High for a few years. I've done it all.

That being said, it's been a long time since I last flowed and an even longer time since I was up to date on the new, hip critical arguments, etc.

If you want to ask me specific questions before the debate starts, I'm happy to answer them.

Also, I'm a lawyer and volunteering through the Young Lawyer's Division of the Utah State Bar, so if any of you have questions about law school plans, being a lawyer, or anything like that, I'm happy to answer questions either after round or you can email me at leilani@utdivorceattorney.com

Debate: Debate is about clash. That being said, if you decide to run a "K" and it does not logically fit with the topic, or opponents spend the debate arguing topicality rather than the topic, this could cost points/ranking. Contentions, frameworks, plans, etc. need to be clear. Roadmaps are helpful, but not required. Be ready to show evidence and have logical connections to your contentions, reasoning.

If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I will give you a signal. If you continue to go too fast for me to understand, and not seem to acknowledge my signal, this will impact your scoring.

Congress: I am looking for a well-presented argument on the bill presented. Memorization is good, but not key. However, you should not be reading directly from your speech, especially further into the debate season. Evidence and logic are preferred in your speech, with references to your sources. My scoring is based on how many quality speeches are given, how many quality questions you as between speeches, and how knowledgeable you are about the topic you are presenting. Being a quality chair who is able to control the house/senate is key as well.

Speech: I am looking for a good speaker, someone I would enjoy listening to, and watching all day. Speakers should have clear voice, appropriate tone, and gestures, as well as props appropriate to topic (as event permits). Speeches should also have clear organization which matches topic and tone. Appropriate presentation and dress are a must.

In all events, be respectful and polite. Attack your opponents case, not your opponent, and always leave, if not as friends, at least acquaintances.

I am a parent judge :)