My paradigm is extremely simple. Carpe Diem, a clean slate. This means that I judge each, and every round with only the information that is provided in given round. I was a Varsity Policy Debater for four years with qualifications to Nationals a couple of times. I understand all arguments, and flow everything provided in the round. Critical arguments are great, theory should only be used in certain circumstances, and if you can frame that it is the correct circumstances you will get my ballot. I consider the stock issues of policy debate to hold major weight throughout the debate as well.

Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

***BELLARMINE RHETORIC INVITATIONAL:

IGNORE EVERYTHING ABOUT:

- NO extra speaks

- NO spreading - this will be a slow round. If you are talking faster than you should, be warned - your grade WILL go down.

- NO Counterplans

EVERYTHING ELSE IN MY PARADIGM APPLIES!!!

Good luck!

Specifics:

Novice Policy:

I am a sophomore policy debater at Bellarmine. I will flow your arguments and pay attention to cross ex. That being said, if you want me to consider anything from cross ex, please mention it in your speech. I have debated a ton on this year's topic, so I'll be fine with abbreviations. Just keep in mind for future rounds that most parent judges might not be.

In terms of what arguments you read, treat me like a parent judge; that is what you should be practicing at this novice tournament.

Topicality: If you're going to read topicality, explain very clearly why the affirmative is not topical. Also explain why I should vote neg because of it.

Counterplans: Although you don't generally read counterplans in novice or lay in general, I'll still consider them equally. But - make sure you have a reason for reading the counterplan, and I wouldn't recommend kicking it because that's not at all intuitive to parent judges.

Speech content: In the final rebuttals, tell me very clearly why I should give you the ballot. For the 2NR, preempt the 2AR. For the 2AR, don't drop all of their arguments just because they don't have another speech - I am flowing. Essentially, do good line by line in every speech. Make sure to also practice framing throughout all your speeches.

Cross ex: Be nice, ask important questions, and no tag team cross ex please.

Speaks: Don't go fast - this is novice debate. I will most certainly dock you points. Some quick things about speaks:

1. Give a speech solely off of paper or computer - I want eye contact. I understand that when reading evidence, you should look at the evidence, but when reading tags or responding to arguments I expect some eye contact.

2. It's okay to be a little aggressive in cross ex, but DO NOT be rude, physical, or overly aggressive either.

3. I understand that this is a novice tournament, so I will be lenient on stuttering and pausing, but any gaps that aren't tiny will also be a small deduction in speaks.

4. If you are neg, I still expect you to flow the 2AR. It is always good to learn from a speech, even if it won't affect you in that specific round.

5. USE ALL YOUR SPEECH/CX TIME! Speech and cross ex time is a gift - USE IT! Using 7/8 minutes means you could've spent more time framing or convincing me of your side. I will dock your speaker points if you are short. (Quick thing - I expect both teams to time their own prep and speeches, please don't steal prep it looks very bad and is unethical.)

6. ALWAYS BE NICE! This is the most important thing. If you are very rude to your opponent that will result in an automatic 25. That means don't laugh during their speeches or after the round, just be cool.

7. +0.3 speaks for every good Minecraft joke - if it's bad I'll give you +0, if it's in between I'll give you +0.2 for effort.

8. +0.1 speaks for any and every Trump joke - I love them and don't be afraid to make more political jokes and references, I will add more speaks accordingly.

9. +0.1 speaks for puns. I might make it +0.2 if it's SUPER cringey.

10. +0.1 speaks for every time you make me laugh throughout the debate. Feel free to remind me after the round.

11. I will bump you up an entire speaker point if you can use the phrase "You can't just drop bombs and then grow wheat"(Dalmia '19) in one of your speeches. However, it has to be in the right context and relevant to the debate.

Final notes:
-I may ask to see evidence after the debate if it comes down to a specific piece of evidence. Thus, it is in your best interest to make sure the evidence makes the claim you say it does.

-I will make sure to give you extensive comments after the round - and if you have any questions please feel free to email me at dhruv.dalmia22@bcp.org. Also, if you use an email chain, add me to it.

I'm sorry for the length of the paradigm but I think it will be a better debate if you read through it.

Most importantly, have fun!

-Dhruv

Love the enthusiasm of the kids. As a parent i like kids to be well prepared, speak clearly and precise, make impact at the end

Update 2/13/2021

Add me to the Email Chain: MD16@albion.edu

I debated in high school at CRSJ from 2018-20 through SVUDL. I debate Policy and LD.

I am currently attending Albion College in Michigan.

Currently I am a judge for SVUDL and DUDL. I was given the opportunity to debate from a UDL and I am more then willing to help any UDL students. I understand what it takes coming from a UDL, so I just want everyone to have fun and learn.

Speed: I am fine with speed but please make sure it's clear for me to understand. If I don't understand I will say clear three times and you'll have to hope for the best.

Kritiks: I am fine with Ks but I had limited exposure to Ks themselves. If you chose to run a K that is more complicated or nuanced please do the extra work of explaining it for me, I hate assume things and it might not always work in your favor.

Topicality: If your opponents run something unfair, call it out and run topicality. I will actually listen and it matters, I've had too many parents judges just dismiss it because they just like the other arguments my opponents where making.

Theory: Please make it clear and reasonable. It may be better to have a doc sent out as it would be easier for me to follow. I will probably vote on Education, access, or fairness. Sometimes you don't have the same opportunities so I just want everything to be fair for everyone. Now, I personally don't like frivolous theory but if you chose to run it I will do my best to put my bias aside.

CP: Okay Okay... my favorite cp of all time is the Canada counter-plan. My friends ran the Wakanda counter-plan on the 2019-20 topic and I always loved how passionate they were about it and how they knew every aspect about it. They put a lot of work into it and it helped our whole team understand it and to get a new perspective on it every time.

CX: I am fine with tag-team CX. I don't usually flow CX, if it's a definition then I'd probably write it down. When the time runs out, please wrap it up and be respectful to your opponents. If your opponent doesn't answer your question, call it out.

DA: I am fine with anything, make sure it makes sense. I would rather you run 2-3 solid DAs then 6 or 7 and then drop them.

If you made it this far then yess, this might help you see what I might like and probably will vote on.

Please Please Please make sure if you are running anything that is as clear as possible, I don't want to assume things because you work hard on your cases and if I have to assume something it might not help you.

I want a good informative debate, I want everyone to learn something new and have a good time. Everyone has a different perspective on the world and everyone's voice is valid. Do not discriminate against anyone, debate should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. With that if there is discrimination in the round I will take it to tab, I will definitely will not stand for racism or Ablism, everyone matter and every voice is important. Do not make something up too, that is just abusive and hurts every community.

My favorite Ks of all time is Anzaldua and Afro-futurism, learning these two really helped my debate team really grow and helped us understand our place in the world. I am chicano so Anzaldua hit on a personal note. I really care that everyone is represented in debate and if your argument are about structural issues then this space is for you because if we are educated then we can find solutions.

put me on the chain: sofia_funk@brown.edu

if you're a novice don't stress

generally tech > truth, but the more outlandish your claim, the less work needs to be done on the flow by your opponent to win it

i don't care what you argue if you explain it clearly and aren't discriminatory

debate should be accessible

spreading is ok as long as you are clear and share your doc but not preferred (spreading =/= speaking quickly which is always fine)

ask me any specific questions before the round

policy: don't send me a disorganized doc

Hello! I'm Jude (he/him). Currently a college student at SJSU. Good luck, have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity and I'm glad you're here :)

= affiliations =

Yerba Buena High School:2018-2022, Varsity Policy/LD.

Silicon Valley Urban Debate League:2018-2023

= too long, didn't read =

• i was primarily a k debater but i'm still knowledgeable on policy jargon
• tag-team/open cross-ex is fine
• put on the email chain: ybjgadingan@gmail.com
• please extend author name AND citation with taglines.
• spreading is fine, i'll say clear if you're too fast.
• i come with rust after being inactive for a year. please try to elaborate on this year's topic and any applicable acronyms

== not long, did read ==

Email chain: Yes! I would love to be on the email chain: ybjgadingan@gmail.com

I love keeping a good flow, but evidence w/ proper cites is perfect in case you want me to take a look at specific cards.

For Novice Debaters: I want both sides to have fun, so please try to be kind to your opponent. Try your best during rebuttals and you'll be fine, I promise! If I look bored it's never you, that's my concentration face haha

(if Online tourney): I don't mind if you have your camera off, but I'll try to have mine on as much as I can!

Preferences

I love clash! I can't be mad when someone's passive-aggressive in round because I was notorious for that, but when you decide to just be rude it can get awkward and I will probably dock your speaker points for unwarranted remarks. The one thing I LOVE more than clash is when the debater does the work for me, so line-by-line is a personal favorite of mine to see during rebuttals.

== Stop here if you're in Novice Bracket. Unless you want to, not stopping you==

Theory: As a K debater I’ve ran into enough arguments that call for in round abuse, and I can say that if you’re this sort of debater you’re going to have to be very sketch if you have me as a judge. I will listen and flow it, but if you can’t provide an explanation of why the other side produced so much abuse that you just HAD to run T that ISN'T education, then I’ll default to the other side.

CX: I love cross-ex and I’ll be paying careful attention to it; If you hammer in a point during CX and the opponent doesn't respond well enough to it I’ll write it on my flow. But, if you don't really have any hard-pressing questions that's fine; Just use it as a space for clarifying what they're arguing.

DA’s: Go on ahead! If you can convince me w/ a good explanation then I’m ready to listen :)

CP’s: Not a huuuge fan, but if you can prove that your CP can solve better than their case I can vote on it. I’ll be looking at solvency the most, so please weigh it!

Kritiks: My bread and butter. I absolutely love these but only if the people running it know what they’re doing. If you only want to run a K just because you want to throw people off and don’t really understand your own literature, I hope you know how to justify running it in the first place. K’s of all forms are good, and I find philosophy interesting; Identity ones are my specialty, so if you’re thinking of running one I highly encourage it. Debate is a space where people can find their voice through it, so convince me why your K comes before your opponents’ arguments well enough (which includes impact calc) then I’ll vote for you.

Planless affs: If you plan (pun intended) on running these, I’ll be looking at your framing the most. But I’m here for it.

== LD-Specific: ==

Framework: Negative, please make sure that you properly state your framing (or list out your Value and VC if applicable), otherwise I'll have to default to the AFF's framing.

== miscellaneous ==

Speaks: I start at 28, and go up/down. Discriminatory comments WILL get you 25 pts and an email to your coach, so please don't do it.

Accomodations: If someone explicitly asks for accomodations, accomodate. Be a nice person in and out of debate, thank you.

Fun tidbits: I've finally entered the modern-age and flow on my iPad, with my laptop to pull up any evidence you send me, so feel free. I also carry my own timer, but if you wish to time yourself feel more than free.

Other fun tidbits about my Debate Lore: I was a performance K debater that primarily ran queer and orientalism cases on the AFF/Neg. I was raised starting from the tender age of 10th grade by the esteemed Dr. Robert Burns and Santalucia Hernandez, and coming from an urban debate league I try to be as open as I can to cases, so while this paradigm is a tad dramatized please know I'll evaluate the round with an open mind. Thanks for making it all the way down here, put :) at the top of your doc for +0.5 speaker pts!

I was a high school debater back in the 1970s. I have been judging debate for approximately 5 years. I am a math and physics graduate from the University of Illinois and a EECS graduate from UC Berkeley.

Hi!
I'm Aakash Jain, I'm currently a senior at Bellarmine College Prep. I've participated in Policy debate at all levels, from parents to circuit tournaments, Congressional Debate, and have done a little bit of public forum debate. I've also done Original Advocacy speech.

If you are a Rhetoric freshman, please ignore this completely - just do what Mr. Langerman/Cleary has taught you and you'll be fine.

Generally, I'm fine with anything in your rounds, but make sure to be clear and courteous throughout the debate.

Telling me how I should vote through the debate is really the gold standard of being an effective debater, please do.

In the rounds I will be judging, novice rounds, I would generally recommend not reading Kritikal arguments or talking particularly quickly. Instead, you should stick to counterplans, disadvantages, or best of all stock issues. I personally have mainly read kritikal arguments, so I'm fine with them if you read them well.

If I can't understand your speaking in the round, I'll say clear once.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

Speech & Debate Teacher Coach (2020 - Present)

DCP El Primero High School

She/Her Pronouns

Add me to your email chain: jlew-munoz@dcp.org

Personal Background

Consider me as a lay judge. Never competed in speech or debate events in high school or college. Earned a BS in Mathematics and MA in Teaching. Became a teacher coach as there is an alignment with constructing mathematical proofs and constructing logical arguments as seen in both speech and debate. Main experience teaching/judging policy debate and impromptu speech.

Policy Debate

Please, please, please …

• No spreading. I am okay with normal to moderate speed. Talk clearly and enunciate.

• Explicitly state your claims (arguments), warrants (evidence/reasoning), and impacts (why it matters/net impact).

• Signpost and give me an off-time road map. Make it easy for me to flow.

• Rebut/Clash. Attack your opponent's case as much as possible. So make sure to keep track of what they are saying. (FLOW!) Note: I’ll vote on dropped arguments if I catch it. Also, if there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

• On a similar note, weigh all arguments using impact calculus. Talk about magnitude, scope, probability, etc. Show me how the plan can either create a net positive or net negative impact on the world.

No K’s, theory, or tricks.

Lay parent; but former high school debater and current professional lobbyist. If I had a general approach, it would be tech over truth. It's not about my ideology . . . And please don't try to tailor your approach to what you assume my background and leanings are. (I didn't always drive a minivan). It's about your ability to make an argument with links, analysis and evidence. Please don't read me a bunch of cards and expect me to work out the arguments for you. I am not a believer in judge intervention. I'm high on organization, so give me the line by line. It also probably benefits you to slow down for high theory argumentation -- I don't live and breathe it like you do. No major preferences on argument or framework (i.e., don't steer away from K's or speed because I'm someone's mom . . . I actually enjoy a good K). Having a said all of that, I'm not a fan of RVI's, which I find to be counter-logical. If you go that route, it will cost you more time in analysis and persuasive argumentation than you were striving to save. On disads and CP's: make some effort to get beyond a generic disad shell or boilerplate CP and tailor your arguments and analysis to the specific aff presented. On K's: I have and will vote on these. I enjoy a good K, but -- again -- I don't live and breathe this. I am relatively unfamiliar with the literature base, so be sure to articulate your arguments well and do not assume I know any of the terms you are using. Identity politics arguments are a much more familiar cell (and a more natural orientation) for me than postmodernism. I don't preclude these arguments, but work overtime to make sure you have a deeper more thorough explanation and analysis if you choose to run them in front of me. Niemela@npalobby.com

Who is this judge?

I am an Economics and Government Classroom Teacher. I have also taught World History and United States History. My background is in Anthropology. I have co-coached debate for three years and predominately judged Policy Debate. I go by he/him pronouns.

What does this judge care about?

The debate for me is about civil discourse and should be honored in that respect. I emphasize equity of voice and time management. Debaters should not seek to dominate the air time, but find balance in the discussion. Debaters should track their own time carefully as well as that of their opponents. Before starting speeches or taking preparation time you should check with judge and opposition in order to ensure and equal and fair competition as possible. Debaters should ensure that judge, opposition and partner are ready before launching into their arguments/rebuttals.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. Do not spread, speak quickly. If you must spread, make sure the tag and author/date are very clear. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, you should be able to tell if I can keep up by watching me. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me.

Hello! My name is Jasleen Kang (she/her) and I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying Public Health. I used to do mainly policy debate through SVUDL for four years. I've also been a lab assistant for Summit Debate where I judged LD and PF. Most of my comments are fairly straightforward and largely directed towards policy, but the central idea applies to all, and if you have any questions or would like clarifications feel free to email me before the round.

Please add me on the chain: jasleenkang@berkeley.edu

General:

1. Flashing is not prep. However, do not abuse this.

2. If online, please try to keep your camera on if possible, covid times make it difficult to tell when prep is being stolen and I would like to be fair to both teams.

3. Calling for evidence is prep.

Here are key points to keep in mind:

1. Spreading. I do acknowledge that spreading has taken an important place in the debate community, but, I believe that it makes debate significantly more inaccessible. If you spread, please make sure you are speaking clearly, if you are not this is a warning that speaks can be docked for this. Additionally, f someone is asking you to accommodate but you are continuing to spread, I will have little tolerance for it.

2. I dislike arguments without specific, thought-out link chains. I love seeing arguments that are specific and pull lines from the Aff/CX, this applies to DAs and Ks. Overall, I promise it's going to be an uphill battle if you run 4 Politics DAs, none of which have specific links to the Aff.

3. I love case debate! If I'm judging please take the extra prep time to come up with some solid analytics against the affirmative. I would much rather judge this than short, watered-down offs although please try to have at least some offense (even if it's case turns), this makes it easier for me to vote. See below for additional comments on framing.

4. Framing and impact calc. I prefer being able to intervene as little as possible, framing is definitely the first thing I will evaluate so I highly recommend both teams take the time to tell me what the focus of the debate is and why they are ahead. If neither team brings up framing I will default to whichever case was more convincing and if the affirmative is worth passing/implementing. I am definitely willing to vote neg on presumption if the team does a good job of addressing aff solvency/impacts.

5. Open to most arguments. I'm happy to judge any arguments that lean policy or critical. My only caveat would be that debaters keep number 1. in mind and explain their arguments (especially with Ks) as much as possible.

6. Topicality. Within topicality, I'm most convinced when the negative is able to bring up specific abuses in the round and identify topical versions of the aff. I think definitions being accessible to both sides and topic education is important. I really do not want to judge debates with topicality that is not fleshed out thrown in at the top.

Hi everyone! Pls add me to the chain rachelstattion@gmail.com

My name is Rachel, I don't mind being called judge or Rachel, either works I'm like 6 months older than the oldest of you so not that big of a deal. I did policy debate and the tiniest bit of speech in high school. I currently go to SCU in California. I don't debate in college for two reasons: 1. they aint got policy here which would be fine but I am lazy and don't want to learn all over again how to debate and 2. tournaments gave me ~*anxietyyyy~*.

I'm usually a nervous wreck so please note, if you try to post-round me I will shut that down real quick. I am always willing to answer questions about why I do the things I do, buttttttt I will not accept entitled children coming up demanding answers and demanding a victory. nope.

Also, if you are worried about losing to a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, entitled team, don't be. If I catch that sh*t not only will they not receive my vote but they will get as few speaks as I am able to give. Debate is already an exclusive activity, I will not tolerate those who think its okay to keep it that way. And for that matter, if you think you are one of those teams who tries to play savior for black and brown communities you do not belong to, then you have another thing coming, be very wary about the way you posit yourself and you prolly wont find me mad-dogging you.

Also, I don't smile, and have RBF, sorry for those worried about that but usually y'all are okay. If you see blatant confusion on my face, damn broskies I'm sorry not quite following your direction rn. Cursing is allowed, but not just because it is, use it to emphasize your pt, not the other way around. CX can be competitive if y'all are giving each other the run-around, but don't condescend or be blatantly disrespectful. Confrontation is different from disrespect. Be clear, don't spread, especially now with my shoddy internet connection and I swear to goodness if you do I will not follow. If I need to read the doc to have any clue what you are saying there is a problem.

Now for the juicy:

ON T/FWK: I'm willing to vote on it if it is like a really flushed out T violation, with a clear explanation of why it violates and its implications. But if you just up and go, "T - doesn't meet" 4 times with no further explanation, I will cry. Framework is a bit more convoluted, but I essentially request the same if not more detail on why debate should be structured this way. I'm not good at weighing either of these, especially with competing interpretations, so I would not bank on them unless the other team just completely mishandles it.

ON CASE: Y'all need offense. It cannot be just 'doesn't solve', because if they run the risk of solving then I will most likely vote affirmative. If you have got offense args like a turn, it will look way better for you and increases your chances of crushing the round. Making 3 or 4 really smart args on case is way better than 8 off case that barely link. Aff, carry arguments and ev from your 1ac, it is so undervalued, use that sh*t to answer their case args.

ON DAs/CPs: NGL a lot of the DA's I've seen have been dry as all hell, so you may see me bored out of my skull during the round if you are running another damn politics DA. Also, extremely weak connections between the DA and the case or running 4 DAs and hoping one sticks or the other team will drop it, it can work but I will still be big sad and disappointed in u. This is especially true with random CPs that make no logical sense or like 3 different CPs that are full of crap. Aff, literally I love turns on DAs, they make me smile again in this dark and dreary world. But, again cross apply args from the 1ac to answer, it makes your args stronger and I think of you better.

ON Ks: I love K's, I think they can be an awesome addition to a teams strat. But again, if you are using a K just to use a K, I will really look down on you for that. Especially if you run like a SetCol or Afropess K that has basis in identity to a certain degree and use it just as a one off, I will definitely dock speaks bc that is not cool at all. I don't know all Ks, and I think some are dumb, but if you can thoroughly explain to me why I should vote on it, it'll look better for you. Also, please make your advocacy clear. Aff, call them on their bs if their advocacy/alt is trash, sometimes I will agree with you.

ON K AFFs: Love them. But I also am really bad with the nuance of them. I really enjoy watching and hearing these rounds, but I get lost a lot easier, so as long as everything is explained thoroughly I'll definitely feel okay voting on it.

ON THEORY: Literally I have 1 round of experience with theory, and that was a blur. If you explain to me what it is you are arguing, why its important, or just what it is you want me to vote on it should be okay. But take this one realllll slow.

TLDR: Take it slow, explain it thoroughly, and you'll be good. I am not the most knowledgeable human being, so I need your help in giving me reasons to vote for you. TBH, I would rather not vote for anyone so as to avoid confrontation, so convince me por favor. Don't steal prep time, imma be mad. ALSO, if I am giving an RFD and you aren't paying attention, like at all, you can forget about me giving you a reason for your loss, you lost because you are buttfaces and dumb. Thanks yall, and good luck!

PS: brownie points for those who talk wit me about manga or got7. <3 y'all!

1. Group your arguments clearly, usually persuaded by large set of well developed & cited arguments.
2. Deliver your arguments slowly and clearly, backed up with evidence (historical/political/data) and adequate reasoning.
3. Evidences should be cited with author and any other relevant info.
4. I'd look for a well structured plan, impact and evidences over pragmatic analysis.
5. Be polite, civil and exhibit eye contact with your fellow debaters as well as with the judges.

(For email chain: michael.christler@gmail.com)

Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.

I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.

Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.

Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.

What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.

Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.

T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.

K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)

Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.

A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.

Good luck.

Hi! I am a parent judge. I look for someone who presents the case well, and knows what they are talking about.

Be nice and have fun!

~~~~General~~~~

I am a first time parent judge--please speak slowly.

Remember to have fun!

~~~~Speech~~~~

I will not give you time signals (although I can if you ask)