I have been the coach of Port of Los Angeles's team since 2018, and have judged approximately 50 rounds.

Preferences: Students should stand when they speak

Both partners should participate equally, including in cross examination

Please run your own time (and you may want to monitor your opponents' to keep them honest)

Give roadmaps and signpost within speeches

Clarify your impacts and provide a solid link chain

I am open to any kind of aff, but make sure you explain well why your plan or K-aff is better than the squo/necessary

I'm not really a technical judge. I will weigh multiple arguments, including framework and counterframework, but in the end I base my decision primarily on how convinced I was that your aff needs to happen to solve a problem, or that the aff is not useful or net harmful. Fairness questions will not often be the reason for my decision.

Ks and K-affs should be explained in simple language. I'm not that smart.

Don't be evil.

For the most part, tabula rasa, all is good with me, former debater, HOWEVER I have limited experience with this year's resolution, so I would ask that you go about 80 to 90% spreading speed to help me better flow and get all the args and cards.

Email for email chains: pablojacobo8899@gmail.com

Background: I did 3 years of High School Policy Debate for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL). I did some coaching here and there for the first 2 years of my undergraduate studies, mostly focusing on Kritiks and K-Affs.

I graduated from UCLA with a degree in History in 2020, have been judging sporadically ever since. I have judged a few LD debates but most of my knowledge lies in Policy Debate.

I tend to favor k debates when done correctly since they are more engaging for me but I’m not afraid to vote on framework or T - really just depends on how the arguments are structured throughout the debate.

Feel free to run whatever you want in front of me, I have no reservations or biases against any style or manner of debate - I won’t do the work for you however, so please be direct and specific when going over your arguments.

For technical stuff: Tag team cross-x is fine, I won’t take your time if you have technical difficulties (within reasonable limits, if your computer literally melted and won’t function for longer than 15 minutes then it’s an issue). I won’t take time for flashing files via usb or emailing.

Basically, just have fun so we can all enjoy a great debate.

I would like to be on the email chain please! Email is amy.lopez1354@gmail

Pronouns are she/her!

I'm Amy Lopez! Debated at LAMDL for 3 years (took a break junior year). Now I attend USC, am part of their debate team, and get to judge.

for LAMDL tournaments: I'm not too familiar with the high school topic so bear with me

I believe the debaters should frame the debate, tell me how to judge! Do what you're most comfortable with. I'm fine with anything, just make sure to be clear, make sure to explain/weigh your arguments, and have fun! :) Also don't be homophobic/transphobic/racist/ableist, will dock speaker points or interrupt you.

other/general:

- pls don't be rude, attitude is fine but there is a very fine line

- be respectful during cx!

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

Cal Debate

For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…

Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.

Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.

T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.

DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Contact: lizzyramirez732@gmail.com

Pronouns- She/her/hers idrc though call me whatever

Maybe don't laugh during the round about the other team's evidence/perf. or try to trigger them, I will drag your speaks to hell. A dropped arg isn't a wrong arg, I will not vote you down if you carry an arg once its dropped IF it's enough to influence my ballot/vote. Keep debates organized and DONT SPREAD TAGS!!! Thanskk :)

To give some background of my debate history I did 4 years of policy debate in high school with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League from 2018-2022. In 2023 I joined the Berkeley Debate Society that competes in the British Parliamentary format. As for my preferences I enjoy hearing K arguments, I really take in consideration impact calc, and I like seeing clash in a round. Structural arguments like framework and T are voters so they must be addressed if you lose on those you lose the ballot. Make sure to sign post, I believe making the round easy to follow is a part of being a good debater. Keep track of your own time as well. I will make sure you don't go over your allotted time but I expect you to respect the limits in place without me having to enforce them. If you ever want further feedback email me at brivlltr@berkeley.edu.