Email - Maxinekyadams364@gmail.com

Prefs

1 - k/performance****, traditional

2 - theory

4 - larp

no tricks.

Important

-i am very flow centric (flow cross ex even)- tech matters a lot

-impacts are important to me. please give me framing and comparison, tell me the story of your impacts and how they outweigh.

-case debate - be very clear when you're cross applying arguments to the case flow - 2nr and 2ar must go to the case page and isolate what you're winning

-FW - ill vote on it if you win it.

More thoughts

- please collapse by the 2n/2a and use judge instruction.

- good analytics > bad cards

My name is Alex and my pronouns are he/him.

UDL policy debater in high school ('18). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (Dec '21).

Yes email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card -- I want a doc.

Fall 2021 Update:

- For online debate: PLEASE go slower than usual

- I've noticed I'm judging a lot of K debates, which are fun! But I would be SO happy to judge some da/cp rounds too

- LD and PF specific stuff at the bottom!

Top Level:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- I believe very strongly that debaters should show mutual concern for each other's well being and avoid any physical and/or rhetorical violence. Additionally, debate means different things to different people and I expect you all to be respectful of this

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Organization is rewarded in speaks!

- Tell me why stuff matters!!!!!! Especially dropped arguments

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk.

Framework and K Affs:

- I like kritikal stuff -- if that's your thing, I'm probably a decent judge for you. I've also read my fair share of framework though, so I def have 2N sympathy

- Your aff should probably at least be in the direction of the resolution

- Framework needs to be impacted out and fairness and education are both legitimate impacts. Tell me why your model of debate is best

Kritiks:

- Sure! I am most familiar with neolib, cap, security, biopower, queer theory, fem, Puar, Chow, and afropess

- Explain things out (especially on the link and alt level!) and don't rely on buzzwords

Theory:

- If you're running theory just for the sake of running theory, I can probably tell and I'll hold you to a pretty high standard. I'll be grumpy if you waste my time with blippy theory shells, especially if your ten second 2AC "floating pics bad" becomes three minutes of the 2AR

- Condo is probably good (unless the advocacies are egregiously contradictory) but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise

Topicality:

- I default to competing interpretations

- Phrases like "it's a voter for fairness and education" don't mean anything — give me more. Explain and impact out your voters. I will not vote on T if there are no impacts

Counterplans:

- Smart counterplans with a good net benefit are my fave

- "Cheating" counterplans are great and super fun (and it's probably in your best interest to read theory against them!)

Disads:

- Yes pls

- Politics disads are sometimes of questionable quality, but they're fun

- Zero risk is a thing

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

- I don't disclose speaks

PF SPECIFIC:

- I'm not terribly familiar with PF norms, but I promise you that I'm capable of evaluating your arguments. Please please impact things out and do lots of weighing -- this is the easiest path to my ballot.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

DEBATE:

LD PARADIGM

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I have experience judging at mostly traditional style debate rounds. Therefore, only run traditional arguments and talk at a conversational pace. By that, I mean NO Kritiks, Counterplans, Plans, Theory, T, Tricks. etc. It is crucial to paint a picture of the round, and explain to me why I should vote for you. You can accomplish this with the basic skills of debate, such as weighing, impact analysis, and most importantly voters. Tell me throughout the speech WHY I should vote for you. In the scope of traditional debate, you can run any arguments you want with the exception of anything that is discriminatory in any way. I will not tolerate any kind of discrimination or rudeness. This doesn't mean you cannot clash with your opponent and be aggressive, but just regulate it to a point where it promotes safety in this debate space. Please be respectful to each other. Do not spread, again, I am a parent judge and I think accessibility is important, that also means accommodating to your judges preferences. Finally, jokes that actually make me laugh will earn you extra speaker points. Have fun!

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but am familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from NCS debate in 2020 and currently attend UT at Austin pursuing a degree in psychology. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school, so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of modern LD. Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu or if we've debated and you have a previous email saved for me, that works too. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; I don't gut check "bad" arguments; I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritikal debate, etc.; I feel like this goes without saying but I will not vote on something I don't understand it just doesn't make any sense for me to do so; By nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent. This means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by); I enjoy analytics more than empirics. I love tricks, but I think they're only pedagogically valuable for their ability to boost critical thinking other than that they're generally just for funzies and potentially bad for debate; Due to the nature of my paradigm and the debates I typically judge because of it please read the fourth point in the general section as well; Lastly my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change just make the proper arg.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly.

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- um if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- there are only a few norms I think are pretty true; among them are judge intervention bad, no new 2ar arguments, and normal speech times (although these can easily change)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine.

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it will be veryyy hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is very important for me if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

CPs:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple CP debates)

- Any CP is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo is bad in all scenarios, but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks) you just have to be marginally ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo CPs just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

DAs:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive CP makes this position much better

- the more unique the DA the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic FW debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is any lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of LD debate

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which fw to evaluate under, but I'm not super compelled to default either way

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are hella fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of T-FW as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs T-FW as long as there is sufficient offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance is offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

FW:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topical links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of these as linear DAs in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- MUST be explained; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad and if your opponent points it out it's an uphill battle to win the k flow

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default RVI's good, competing interps, and DTD unless otherwise specified

- I default fairness first but am easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if AFC/ACC are tricks, but know I'll listen to both

- aprioris and evaluate after the 1ar are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. as long as it is well warranted

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- My speaks practices have recently changed :( I'll give speaks based on strategic decision making and clarity (I'm no longer just giving straight double 30s without a spike or some other argument that prompts me to)

- I am persuaded by a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it is extended

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate like I would a nat circuit for a local

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a large speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format

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

PLEASE SHOW UP DURING THE TECH TIME THE TOURNEY HAS GIVEN- plz and thank you

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

Hi, I graduated from West Broward and I attended the University of Mary Washington up in Virginia. I did LD for four years and competed on the varsity policy team at UMW, go eagles. If you think you need to strike me you probably dont, I left LD in high school so honestly fresh starts are a thing lol. Ive judged a ton of rounds on these online platforms so I've learned to be more flexible with extensions and such. However, blippy 2 second args are terrible- its not that difficult to articulate lol. Please just make debate an entertaining experience for me and your opponent.

Hi theory kiddos- please stop with the blippy extensions of stuff. It's getting really annoying having to do work for yall. Friv theory is ehhhhh (and by eehhhh I mean it'll cause me to cry internally, doesnt mean I won't vote for it)

Quick Rating Guide:

K-1

LARP-1

Theory-3/4 depends on how you explain stuff

Tricks- 4

Framework- 3

Here is a list of things I was always worried about when I debated, Im going to attempt to make this as simple as possible:

1. I was a LARP debater for 3/4 of my years in LD, and then switched over to K's and a more critical debate style. I appreciate a nice fleshed out K, but also I appreciate really good LARP debate as well.

2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however I need a clear articulation on how to do so. Yes I do prefer LARP and K debates but do not try to conform to my old preferences. Debate how you would like to debate, I only realized that this was important my senior year so I suggest you all just follow your heart.

3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it. If you like theory I'm totally fine, anything you are comfortable doing I will try my best to adjudicate the round fairly.

4. I think respect is super important, this does not mean you can't be aggressive or throw a little shade in speeches but do maintain a level of decency. Please and thank you.

5. Being on an online forum has revealed some interesting issues that I want to highlight here. Don't engage in microagressions or gross comments in general. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person. Please don't say "The judge believes x,y,and z."- you have no clue what Im thinking. Record your speeches in case someone gets disconnected, don't just laugh and be like LOL sucks for you. Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being an asshat) :)

Tolerance Levels:

LARP- I'm fine with LARP debate. Any jargon that has grown on you I will probably know unless LARP has changed drastically in a year. I prefer when you explain the implication to me, if not I have no idea what to do with certain args. This was one of my go-to styles of debate so I am definitely going to be able to make a logical decision at the end of the round.

K's- K's are groovy. I read a lot of identity literature during my senior year so I definitely love these kinds of debate. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Over the summer I also dove into a lot of unfamiliar literature to me in order to be able to understand in rare cases I come back to judge high school debate, so I probably am well versed in K debate more than others.

Framework- I love good framework debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant or more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. In every round I expect some sort of framing to help me evaluate the round or else it makes it very difficult to figure out a decision.

Theory- In my old school years I hated theory, BUT policy has changed me and I am starting to appreciate it a lot more. DOESNT MEAN I DO WORK FOR YOU, SLOPPY DEBATE IS NOT COOL. I don't have any defaults on theory besides norm setting> IRA, I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. From experience theory debate can get messy and that's when it gets difficult for me to judge the round without a form of intervention to try to figure out what is going on. So please make things very clear for me since Theory has not always been my go to. Even if you have known me from previous tourneys, I definitely have had a huge paradigm shift so definitely don't assume I am incapable from judging these types of rounds.

Tricks- I've debated against tricks before but never ran it myself, always thought it was a pretty cool form of argumentation. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly. I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme a round.

Performance- I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself.

I have competed, coached, and judged high school debate over the last 30 years. I consider myself knowledgeable about assorted frameworks in the Debate world. I am now a parent of a debater. I consider myself a blank slate.

I believe it’s the responsibility of the debaters to guide my decision by their analysis and evidence. If your opponent drops an argument, it’s your responsibility to point it out and provide analysis as to why it matters. I really appreciate when in the final speeches of a debate, the debaters provide the concrete reasons to vote for their side. If neither debater provides these details, I will adopt a secondary framework of common sense to determine the winner.

Clarity in speaking whether conversational or spreading is important.

Hi! I'm Karnessia (pronounced car-nee-see-uh). If you're reading this, you're most likely frantically prepping before a debate round, trying to figure out if you can run that K or if I'm ok with spreading. The answer to both questions is likely yes, but my favorite phrase is "make it make sense."

My background: I was a circuit CX debater and later transitioned to LD. I have a bit of experience with PF as well. I later coached parliamentary debate in college.

411:

"How I pull the trigger" --> I likely won't pull the trigger (so to speak) on technicalities unless it's an egregious violation. I'm also not a one drop and you're out type judge. For me, the big picture and the implications of actions in the "real world" are of paramount importance. Again, make it make sense. Paint the world for me that you're asking me to vote for. Show me a world that's genuinely less oppressive, more efficient, than this current one and you're doing well.

If you're going to read a card, be ready to engage it. It's a red flag for me when a debater is asked about a claim made in their card and they stumble through it. As a debater, I was never with the jargon and the posturing that so often comes with debate. Communication is a two-way street. It involves a nuanced understanding of the needs of the speaker and listener. So, break it down for me. Weigh things! Impact it out. And if you're doing LD, please do some value/value criterion weighing/analysis. You don't have to spend a bunch of time with it, but LD is about the values so I want you to engage that too.

I try to be as open-minded as possible, meaning I will most certainly vote for an argument, even if I don't personally agree with the said argument. HOWEVER, I just can't behind arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Hateful ideas like that don't deserve your breath.

Re: speaker points: Again, clarity is everything! Please be clear on your taglines. And please don't cut your opponent off during cross-examination. I mean, sometimes the ends really don't justify the means. It makes me extremely uncomfortable when people get rude to their opponents out of the blue. To clarify, it's definitely ok to press your opponent to wrap up if they're being long-winded.

Extra: Much of my debate philosophy is informed by my former coaches, Darin Maier and Jharick Shields. I studied under Maier and Shields for 6 years. As a result, I realize my paradigms will sound eerily similar to theirs. They go into many specifics re specific arguments and I generally agree with most of their assessments. I endorse almost 100% of each of their paradigms. I hope I've been clear here, but if you'd like a bit more perspective, viewing theirs may also shed a bit more light on mine.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

Honestly kind of a wildcard, I find myself voting in ways I never would’ve thought of quite often. At one point in time, I was a well-known policy debater, now I might as well be anyone they just picked up on the way to the tournament.

I’ve judged everything from the finals of CEDA Nationals to pf finals at NSDA. Debate and music pays my rent and puts food on my table, this is a job for me, so take that seriously when trying to make something relatable to me. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation, I grew up in a suburban Chicano/Filipino American Household… I say this because Debates that most capture my heart occur in a similar fashion to the arguments we make at the dinner table.

POLICY: There aren’t a lot of arguments I haven’t seen/heard/smelled… I like clear-cut offense in policy debates. It’s very rare that I vote for anything along the lines of “gotta have a plan” or Topicality in general. I’ve coached both high school and college teams on the explicit premise that the topic and or community engaging the topic is flawed in some way. Ideal debates for me will be more about performance and method, I’m more intrigued by what you did/do than the hypothetical. Even when doing fiat style debate, you need to defend it like it has benefits. If heg/cap is good you gotta sell me on a unique enough reason why in THIS instance I NEED/HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN vote for you. Uniqueness absolutely determines the direction of the link for me in more traditional debates. Although I believe in my heart that conditionality is bad, it's hard for me to vote for condo bad when it is debated so nebulously, I generally believe that the negative should have access to everything under the sun to negate the affirmative.

LD: The best LD debates for me are not some mutant reproduction of old policy arguments and styles. I’m a great judge for you if you read a plan text and go multiple off, but in the back of my mind, I wish more LDers would push arguments against fiat, against this way of debating. My ideal form of debate is based on evaluating performance and method… I.e. I think what you do/did is more important than what could potentially happen if x hypothetical policy were passed. Also after judging a significant amount of y’all on the national circuit I’d like to know who is “we”…A lot of top-level LDers are getting away with regurgitating policy arguments to the point where they don’t even think or change up the blocks. I can’t be the only one slightly concerned at the implications of debaters mindlessly reading whatever is on the page right?

PF: I want a copy of your evidence so I can look at it for myself, preferably a speech doc too… other than that these debates are all about uniqueness and terminal impacts for me. I want a clear and cut disadvantage to your opponents' case… it can’t just be a “here’s our side, here’s their side” type of thing. Challenge sources, challenge privilege, and bias. Don’t be afraid to think outside of the box.

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

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

Listing things out not necessarily in order:

1. I am a lay judge

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

3. Be respectful! No personal attacks.

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

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

Have fun debating!

hello my email is jmeza111401@gmail.com (use this for any questions or to add me to the email chain.)

For CX and LD only also add: debatestockdale@gmail.com

I am a LAMDL alumni and debated for stern MASS for three years and currently debating for Cal State Fullerton. I have been both the 2a and the 2n im honestly open to anything as a judge except any ism if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of him ?" the answer is probably no.

Past affiliations:

San Marino (LD) 2019-2020

Stern MASS (CX) 2017-2020

Port of Los Angeles GR (CX) 2020 - 2021

current affiliations:

Stockdale High School (LD & CX) 2021 -

k affs and performance: Go for it. One thing I would add is to be accessible for example if you read a poem have a transcript for me and your opponents and etc. Affirmatives can be in direction of the topic or not it is up to you to still provide a justification and reasoning to why your model of debate is preferable. I buy counter interps more often than we meets.

framework: I don't lean aff on framework debates but there is definitely an above average threshold when competing different models of debate.
procedural fairness is an internal link although the competitive aspect of debate exist and a fair "game" is probably good. Good TVAs are good.

topicality: if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability.

kritiks: Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative does than I am probably going to lean aff on this flow. kicking the alt in the 2nr is not the most convincing strategy and I will most likely not judge kick the alt unless the neg tells me to and the aff drops it. even if I am familiar with your lit base please still explain the ontology debate thoroughly.

counterplans: I lean neg on conditionality 5-7 off is fine 8+ off is a bit questionable. make sure that your counterplans are textually competitive some of them are already cheaty enough. Well explained net benefits to the CP is a must.

disads: Link contextualization is key. specific links are even better. I love good impact calc debates. please explain the internal link chain.

Spreading: when people spread super fast I tend to get off track so please slow down especially in the beginning so I can get used to your voice. If I miss something important than I will probably wont count it in my decision.

truth ≥ tech

TLDR: Email me for any questions or if my paradigm had any typos. Take care and take a break from debate. breaks are good.

LD: you can read tricks in front of me but please impact it out I have judged way to many theory vs theory debates where I have no clue where to vote because there was no impact calc or reason why one arg comes before the other. Other than that policy stuff above applies just please please explain your arguments the time constraints in ld is real but contextualization of links are important.

vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhssMg3GN4&ab_channel=Ondatr%C3%B3pica-Topic

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

Hi! I debated policy in high school from 2015-2019 for James Logan. Please include me on the email chain at phoebehcm@gmail.com.

Update (09/30/21): I wanted to preface my paradigm by saying I'm now three years out from high school debate, and would prefer a slow debate over a fast one. This doesn't mean that you have to go at a turtle's pace, but please don't go breakneck speed either. Sorry for any inconveniences, but I wanted to be transparent about my experience and ability in order to ensure the best quality of judging I can offer. Hopefully this doesn't impair your ability to argue, which is what I will be evaluating over your ability to spread.

General: I debated policy, but I also enjoy Ks. Similarly, I try not to be biased against particular arguments, and instead will evaluate on a case-by-case basis through in-round T/Theory/FW arguments. Debate should be entertaining, so prioritize clash and interaction with each other's arguments instead of repeating your overview or extending without a warrant.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed, but kindly slow down during your theory blocks. Please, please don't make me say 'CLEAR'.

Speaks: I like line-by-line and dislike rudeness (but I have a higher threshold for girls :). I'll likely be generous with speaks, as long as each debater is conveying nuance. Also, I love cross, and an adept cross-examiner will get higher speaks.

Topicality: Just have a reasonable violation/counterinterp. If your winning strategy is T, collapse to just T.

Theory: Welcome it, but as a former 2N I like conditionality (okay, so slightly biased).

DA/CP: Very familiar, and I'm not adverse to PICs. On the DA, always be doing impact calc!

K/K affs/FW: I'm familiar with the popular Ks, just make sure you can articulate it well if it's more obscure. I tend to be fairly persuaded by Ks, but also welcome a vigorous framework debate. Explain what the ROB is!!!

If you have any lingering questions, feel free to ask before round or contact me at the provided email. Happy debating!

I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!

- The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!

- I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.

- When making arguments, I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.

- Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks. However, if I can't flow the argument, you didn't make it.

- Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.

- Signpost! Whenever possible, reference the Contention # or specific subpoint in your speeches and CX. Pretend I'm your pickiest English teacher.

- LD: I prefer you not run a K or using theory shells, but if you do it won't lose you points unless you do not explain in great detail what it means, why it's the right move for the round, and why I should weigh it over your opponent.

- CX is for questions; if you make arguments during CX I will cry. If you make the judge cry, you will get lower speaks.

Finally, I do love judging and love to see students who take the event, but not themselves, seriously. Overly aggressive debaters will lose speaks if it becomes abusive. Be frank and succinct, but be civil.

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please email me the speech docs & any evidence read (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.com

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Overview

Director of Debate at Casady School

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Hi, I'm Jeffrey Swift.

Debating History

I debated at Holy Cross School in New Orleans, Louisiana for 4 years. I debated PF for 4 years, CX for 1 year (jr. year) and World Schools for 3 years (soph-sr. years). I qualled for the TOC my senior year and broke at Nats in WS my junior year (Doubs) and got to finals in a couple of novice CX tourneys (St. James, AL; Newman LA; Hattiesberg, MS; Oak Grove, MS) my junior year as well.

Judging Preferences PF Framework:

I love framework, it is my favorite part of debate. I will vote off of most frameworks if it is substantiated and well defended. I believe that framework is strictly how a judge should evaluate the round. If you lose framework, you're kinda screwed but you can still win if you do a good enough job of meeting the framework. I WILL look at slightly abusive frameworks as well, only because I think it makes debate interesting BUT if you get called out on it and the other team is right about the abuse, you will lose the framework but NOT the round.

TL;DR: I like framework, best way to get my ballot, be slightly abusive but don't get caught.

Speed:

I'm good with speed but I believe that PF is a more common folks type of debate so spreading won't impress me . If you're a little bit faster, that's cool but respect that your opponents may not have an ear for spreading

LD

I'll listen to whatever you feel like running. You just gotta explain it well. If you run something extravagant for the purposes of "it sounds cool," but can't explain it or make it make sense to me it's going to make me angry and I will probably vote for the team that extends something the cleanest or explains an argument the best. If I look unimpressed then I am probably trying to figure out why you thought it would be a good idea to run something you don't understand.

That being said

Run what you wanna run, and enjoy the debates. Email me with any questions at jdswift1028@gmail.com

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAX YOUR SPEAKS?

My best way to answer that question is to say: Make the debate accessible. No, I'm not going to explain what that means. Whatever you think "making the round accessible means" will benefit your speaks.

UPDATE: 1/24/19

I’m going to be tech over truth except for theory i’m truth over tech: meaning I’m not gonna buy the theory arg unless there is real abuse. I’m tired of good rounds being wasted on super petty theory arguments.

Christopher Vincent
Director of Speech & Debate
Isidore Newman School, New Orleans

Add me to the email chain: cjvinc08@gmail.com & newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 18th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies, with a Graduate Certificate in Womens, Gender, and Sexuality studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. I will not vote for arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or ableist in nature.

4. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature. I believe that there are implications to the things we talk about in debate, and believe that our social locations inevitably shape the beliefs that we hold.

5. If you do not believe that performative/critical arguments have a place, or that certain argument choices are “cheating,” I’m probably not the judge for you.

6. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

7. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). I do not believe in neutral education, neutral conceptions of fairness. If you run theory, be ready to defend it. Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

8. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

9. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.