Hiii, just call me Jess ♥

Put me on the email chain@ Cartercjessica@gmail.com

I debated for about two years as a policy debater.

The majority of my debate career I've only ran K's. I understand policy though so please do not come and run a k in my face so I will vote for you because if that shit is trash I will be highly disappointed.

I understand spreading, but if you are not clear I will say clear three times and if you aren't clear by then i will stop listening and flowing.

Topicality: its not a voter. If you run this you have to prove to me how they make education in this debate space worse. You also have to prove to me why fairness matters (it really doesn't). Specifically explain the standards. for example: Ground, why does it matter that you don't have ground and I don't want to hear fairness impacts.

Disads: I love these. Make sure you explain the link. I NEED A LINK STORY. Make sure your impacts actually sound like impacts and not a card that you read in the 1nc. IMPACT CALCULUS!!!!! LIFE CHANGING

Kritiks: this is probably where home is. Like I said earlier DO NOT RUN A KRITIK IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I welcome K's. Most likely y'all will run into Topicality and framework. You as the K debater have to give me reasons why you running a K is better for education and why the negative interpretation is unfair for everyone and not just the aff

Roll of the judge and ballot: Tell me how I'm going to vote. Why should I vote aff or neg. Why shouldn't I vote for the apposing team.

Speaker points:

25-26.9: You were horrible. Most likely said something offensive; Racist, sexist, transphobic..... you get the gist

27-28.5: You were okay, but you probably will break. There is room for improvement just ask me.

28.6-29.5: You were awesome. Please keep debating. Email me I'd like to coach you.

29.6-30: if you got a 30 from me you're perfect. Most likely better than me.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Harbor Teacher Preparation Academy '21

UC Berkeley '25

she/her, lh.ny.57@gmail.com

Pref--I am a fairly new judge for LD so please slow down on theory/ dense arguments

-Lax with prep but don't steal time sending out docs

-IF it's NOT ON THE FLOW ur args are a blow

-don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or you lose period

-tech > truth

Anyways.....

I have been in policy debate for all 4 years of my high-school career. I competed in the Urban Debate Leauges and finished as the City Champion for LA and moved on to semi's of Nationals. When I did compete we ran lots of critical arguments on rhetoric, setcol and afropess so I am most familiar with that literature. tabula rasa

T

I lean aff in reasonability. Unless you're really down for a T debate in the 2nr I say you cut it in the block because I start to tune out.

DA

I enjoy these when they are impacted out well.

K

-assume I have no clue what your literature is and explain it to me like such

-you need to explain to me clearly why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and why that should come first in the round

-you need to tell me why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and what that implies

-you need a lot of comparative work and internal links that get impacted out for me to evaluate and vote for it

-if at the end of the round I don't know how that alt functions or the value of my vote for the K, I'm comfortable voting aff

I'm looking to judge rounds with lots of clash and fruitful debate---- that means I prefer smaller more cohesive arguments than 10 off

-you can affirm the resolution in any way

***-read arguments that you are familiar with not the ones you think will just win you the round****

Extra speaks if

-you're a good persuader not just a good debater

-clear & concise

Hi! yall can contact me anytime for whatever you may need at xanthialam@gmail.com (Yes I would like to be on the email chain)

bit abt me

- UC Berkeley Undergrad

- debated policy and k for all 4 years of hs

feel free to ask me anything abt args or if u need help

and I assume you are here bc I am your judge in which case...

(SHORT VERSION: you do you - I will vote on anything as long as you convince me and put in the work.)

*random things to note

- do not be scared to run anything in front of me

- for speaks: generally the more entertaining or captivating your speeches are the higher the points I give

(honestly I love a good performance whether it be yall doing something hella abstract or just being yall self ) - sad but true statement; if i am bored most likely things be droned out and my attention span will wane)

- I try to remain neutral as possible but understand everyone has their bias' but I do not let my personal feelings alter my decisions

- Be loud and clear when you speak; if you aint I cannot flow what you want me to

- use your time the way you want to

- outline what my ballot should come down too bc if yall do not tell me how to evaluate it imma just do it how I want to which isn't necessarily bad but I wanna give yall a say on how I write my ballot

- be confident not cocky, sas is fine just don't be a jerk, and remember HAVE FUN (well as much as possible at a tournament)

- if you find a way to integrate me into the convo so i feel relevant that props to you

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL- this should be a safe space where yall can debate freely bc everything is debatable

(LONG VERSION BELOW)

Policy-

For aff run anything you want I don't mind as long as it is coherent - by coherent I mean that I can follow the set up and basis of the arg

On policy straight up: just DO NOT USE JARGON without explanation of the terms

K's- this is my strong suit but you need a clear link, alt, and impacts. Make the K unique aka run it in a way that it is specific enough where I wont think its generic.

Theory- this is something I can understand if reasonable, I have a relatively high threshold for theory but please try to limit buzz words

FW- i mean its fw, run it the way you want to...open for interpretation yo... often/majority of times I will resolve/evaluate this flow prior to other arguments but if you do not win this flow does not mean you cannot win other args or the round

Da's- inherency is a killer, be careful and if yall run a da as an off I expect another off to structure it but it is not necessary.

CP's- Its fine just make sure I hear a stable plan text and clear explanation of why.

T- honestly one of my least favorite arguments just bc ppl don't usually go for it and it then becomes a waste of paper (please do not make me kill more trees than I have to)

PERFORMANCE- as a whole make sure you can own up to what ever you are presenting, don't let yourself crumble. Give me a reason to vote on it.

Public Forum-

I do not keep up on pf topics but just upfront tell me to avoid confusion

Anything policy related I can catch on but just make everything clear for me when you outline reasons why I should vote for yall in the summaries

Last two speeches are crucial- make it count as the majority of my ballot will be centered on the final focus'

- the arguments made in the last speeches will be the ones I evaluate the most or possibly the only ones I do evaluate at all

even tho I will evaluate the round as a whole - make sure there are things in each speech that yall make clear yall are winning

Technical stuff

- tag team is fine

- sending email or flash is not prep but do not purposely try to extend your time; DO NOT PURPOSELY STEAL PREP

- speed is fine just refer back to the top of the paradigm

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.