Hi, I'm Pepper Berry, and my pronouns are they/them.

My email if you need it: pberry@seattleu.edu

I've been a debater for five years and I am currently a debater at Seattle University doing British parliamentary.

I have done four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate, about a year of Policy debate, and a tiny bit of public forum. as well as Informative, Impromptu, and Poetry slam.

I am okay with speed within speeches, but you need to be clear. If you are not clear, I cannot flow it. I would much prefer the quality of arguments over quantity, especially for complex arguments.

I will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, counter plans, framework, theory, etc. as long as they are explained well.

I love a lot of clash in values and criterion. Even if you have the same framework explain why you solve better. I think impact calc is very important because it will help me see why you win. I will ultimately judge the round based on who I think debated better. If you want high speaker points make sure not to be mean to your opponent (but that does not mean not standing up for yourself in cx).

Don't worry I was new at debating once too:)

I know you will all do great in your round and don’t be nervous to ask for some tips after your round. This is my junior year and I have gone to state in Lincoln Douglas and impromptu (speech is not my main thing). I have seen a lot of weird stuff so don't worry about asking me questions about specific things, or just general debate things-I love answering questions!:)

My email is madeline.dang@yahoo.com if you have questions later after a round. I always keep my flows and I will be writing notes for who wants them.

Background: Hi, I'm Alexa (she/her)! I debated with Mount Vernon High School for 4 years, and did 2 years of policy before switching to congress for my last two years. I took 1st at state in congress this year and now I'm competing NPDA at Whitman College. I'll probably double major in english and gender studies... but the jury is still out on that one. I haven't kept close tabs on the HS debate world this year, so for LD and Policy assume that I don't have a ton of background knowledge on the topic.

Please include me on the email chain if you have one (grechisa@whitman.edu), and feel free to contact me with any questions you have before or after round.

Decorum: I reserve the right to vote teams down for behavior that is discriminatory in round. Being blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc creates tangible harm in the debate space for marginalized groups and as a judge I won't tolerate it.

I don't mind a round that feels more cutthroat and passionate, but please don't be condescending towards your opponents.

Speed: Right now I feel like I am somewhere in the murky waters between lay judge and experienced policy judge. I am ok with moderate speed, but speech structure is really important for my ability to flow. Please number your arguments and slow down on taglines. I've had fast rounds in parli but I am still adjusting to being able to comprehend spreading again, so I might need to slow you. This won't impact your speaks unless I have to slow/clear you multiple times and you don't adjust.

Ks: I love K debate, go for it on aff or neg. Main thing to remember when running a K aff is to toss in a couple of topic specific links, it makes it feel much more convincing to me. I'm well pretty versed in most of the commonly run Ks (biopolitics, capitalism, settler colonialism, queer identity, antiblackness, afropess, etc). However, if you are running more obscure literature you will have to do a little extra work on telling the story for me to be able to vote on it (an overview is always appreciated). I like to have a clear explanation of alt solvency and proof of that perms fail for the K to win.

I don't like hyperspecific ROBs because I buy that they'll always be exclusionary, I'd prefer that you convert any ROB stuff you have in your shell into regular points on framing.

Condo: I'm fine with the neg being conditional, but ESPECIALLY with Ks that are based on in round solvency I will buy that off case positions that conflict with the K hurt the in round representation you need for your alt. This won't be a voting issue unless it is brought up by the aff, but as the neg be especially careful to kick out of residual offense when collapsing.

Theory: I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T. T being a voting issue is debatable, but I do still think the aff still has to engage with the shell on the line by line level to beat it. If T is a clear winning strategy for the neg due to lack of aff engagement, I will vote on it but if there is another off case position you could collapse to it will probably be easier to win my ballot that way. Please tell explain the link between your standards and your voters, don't just say "fairness and education". For other theory arguments, I will always find them more convincing if there is proven in round abuse (I am most likely to vote on PICs being abusive and some of the more wonky perm texts being unfair). However, similarly to T if the neg is very clearly winning on the flow I could potentially find myself voting on it, just don't love doing it.

CP/DA: The usual, CPs should be competitive and DAs need a clear internal link story for me to be able to vote on them.

Speaks: I won't tank your speaks unless you are disrespectful in round, I honestly think they are based on judge prejudice a lot of the time so everyone will be getting somewhere between 28 and 30.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Hello.

I am Avery Horton, and I use she/they pronouns.

I did LD for 3 years and policy for 1. I'm a Freshman at Willamette University, and I'm part of the debate union doing parli.

put me on the email chain: ashorton@willamette.edu

I promise I'm not a K hack, despite how this paradigm reads.

Pref (this is just over what I like to see in round, I'll vote off anything):

K - 1

Performance/K affs - 1

Theory - 1/2

LARP - 1/2

Phil - 1/2

Tricks - 3

tech > truth

I'll vote on basically anything, just run what you're best at.

General:

Just run whatever case is strategic against your opponent as long as the strategy isn't JUST outspreading them.

Please put your framework at the top of your case -- I won't dock you for having it at the bottom, but its pointless and it bugs me.

Ks

I love K's but I don't hack for them, especially since a lot of (TOC) debaters don't know what they're doing and don't actually understand the arguments they're making.

Theory

I'll vote on basically any theory if its not directly violent

LARP

Be interesting. I'll vote for larp, just debate well and know your case well.

Tricks

I'm most likely to vote off arguments that are really towing the line between tricks and friv theory, like make sure you have actual warrants that can be contested. I'm most prone to buying moral a prioris (especially when in the framework and not an underview).

I hate tricks walls and think they're abusive. Don't run more than like 5 tricks args in a speech, and even then its iffy.

Good luck.

juandeaglan@gmail.com

Background

My name is Isaac Yi, and I did debate for 2 years in high school and qualified for State in PuFo in 2020-2021.

Debate Jargon

Don't use words like "MAD (mutually assured destruction)" or "ASAT (anti-satellite weapon)" without properly defining the terms.

Speed

I have no problem with speed.

Sharing Evidence

I hate taking 30 minutes out of a 45 minute PuFo round to share evidence. Each team can call for ONE card, no more no less, or automatic drop. Have your evidence on hand; I too will also be reading the cards sent in the chain or in chat. If you misrepresent or miscut words, or do something similar to that, that is an automatic drop.

General

If you make an argument in your case and then drop it during rebuttal and summary, I will not flow it if you bring it up in Final Focus.

If your opponent says something, that I know is untrue, and you let it go unrefuted, I will flow it. Again, I will only flow arguments that were brought up MULTIPLE times during the round.

Explain the points of clash and voters and WHY they matter. Please do this in your final focus.

If your opponent has a card saying an argument, I will buy it until you refute it by giving evidence/card that refutes what your opponent says. Simply saying that "it isn't true" will not be enough until you have evidence to back it up.