I competed in LD four years and qualified to the CHSSA state in Policy. Therefore I will always be flowing the rounds I Judge!

In LD I look for these things:

-cross examination- I like a good cross examination because I find it clarifies what both the AFF and NEG really are arguing. I take note of the questions being asked and if theres any contradictions they tend to come out in cross examination 95% of the time.

-Definitions:if you define something, do not have 4 definitions for 1 word. Select one that is strong. Having multiple definitions is confusing.

- Theory:if you run theory, argue it well. I have judged rounds with theory in them and do not have an issue with it.

- Make your voter issues known in the last speech

-K affs--> I am okay with, however if you are argue with a K aff, use evidence that STRONGLY supports your case and the resolution.

-Make sure what you are arguing is topical to the resolution.

If you spread make it known prior to speaking.

Long story short: Be nice to your opponent. Not incredibly aggressive and not mean. Treat each other with respect. If I see foul play or bad manners, I generally lower points.

Personal notes:

• Spreading: Please... I beg you... don't do it. If I can't understand you or miss something, I can't score it.
• Humor goes a long way. It's a long round. If you make me laugh in a good argument, you'll get some brownie points.

To be updated!

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

-

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

My paradigm for congressional debate is quite simple:

I would appreciate if competitors do not spread or talk too fast: the goal of this event is to engage in insightful discussion surrounding the legislation but talking too fast often defeats this purpose.

Clash is important, but clash politely! I enjoy when debaters weigh the impacts of the opposing side with their own. However, I take into careful consideration how you carry yourself throughout the round. How you treat the PO, your fellow competitors, judges, and yourself will be a point that I look at when I cast my ballot. Please be respectful and polite because the kindness you treat your opponents with is more important that any award or trophy you can win. Especially in this online setting, you should be attentive during the round. Asking questions and taking notes lets me know that you are active and participating. With that being said, don't ask questions for the sake of raking up points on my ballot. I appreciate questions that genuinely have a purpose and move the debate forward.

Most importantly, I have no tolerance for any sort of racism, homophobia, sexism, or bigotry. I deem that unacceptable and I will not hesitate to dock you on my ballot.

Make sure to have fun and enjoy yourselves!!

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

Occupation: Teacher

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: I have been judging Public Forum Debates for 2 years now. I am a lay judge but I also understand how Public Forum functions.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

While the art of speaking itself is important, I am more interested in the student’s ability to use the information they have. What makes a strong debater in my mind:

1. An Ability to “sell” their argument. Even if it may not be totally realistic if it is a pragmatic idea go for it.

2. Considering the cost-benefit analysis of any course of action. Make the case that despite whatever it may seem, your course of action will have benefits that outweigh the costs. This is not always immediately apparent, make it clear to me you have considered your situation.

3. A willingness to question the status quo. No matter what side a debater finds themselves on, never assuming that the status quo is the best of all worlds (if it is, prove it).

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

If it is not immediately apparent which side made the stronger argument, by the end of the debate then I tend to reflect on which side was able to turn evidence against the other side and particularly an ability to carry this turn into subsequent speeches. If there was no turning of evidence in a round, then I will focus on the side that made their evidence work for them (not dropping an argument).

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do tend to take notes. I follow the flow of the debate; sometimes it does not make it into the notes.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 3

Use of Evidence: 8

Real World Impacts: 7

Cross Examination: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

A Note on Topics relating to Germany, the Balkans, Russia and Central Asia

I have done a great deal of personal research and traveled extensively in these areas. I am well informed about their current and historical political, economic and social dynamics. I do not look favorably on attempts to stretch the truth of the situations as they exist in these regions today. TLDR, I have a B.S. detector when it comes to topics related to these regions.

For all debate events- I don’t encourage spreading, though it is allowed. I prefer to have debaters speak at a normal pace so that I am able to hear all of your arguments and use them to help make my decision.

Hi! My name is Divya Mehrotra (she/her), and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago! I competed for Dougherty Valley in primarily Congressional Debate & Extemporaneous Speaking for 6+ years, and I still coach for the Dougherty Valley team. I do have some experience in the other debate events, but I spent most of my debate career in Congress and Extemp.

Congress:

• Presiding Officers: I highly respect you all for sacrificing speaking time to serve as a PO. However, that doesn't mean automatically being in my top 6. You are still expected to lead the chamber well and make minimal mistakes to be ranked by me. There is no guarantee that you will rank by solely serving as PO. My idea is that you've done a great job if I can't tell you were there in the first place. I will not penalize you for taking some extra time to be correct. Other things are that I'll definitely smile if I see a colorful PO sheet (it won't influence my rankings, but it does make me happy) and that I like funny and personable POs! A few occasional comments to liven up the round don't hurt! Also, as an update for the Tournament of Champions, I expect that all presiding officers are keeping track of precedence and recency on paper or on the chalkboard/whiteboard available in the room (basically, NO use of computers/tablets to track precedence and recency).

• Cross-Examination: Being ranked in my top 3 means constantly participating in cross-ex. No one is above cross-ex, so please be sure to participate whether it is before your speech or afterward. In terms of evaluation, cross-ex can be the deciding factor in my ranks. I'm not big on having to remain civil during cross-ex. This is one of the only instances where you can clash with others' arguments, so feel free to be more aggressive if that's your personality.

• Indirect: Please ask questions that are not answerable with a yes/no. Point out flaws in their argument and force them to confront any loopholes or flaws in their argument.

• Direct: Please do NOT talk over each other constantly if you can. However, if you need to cut someone off to continue your line of questioning or reclaim the ability to speak, that's all good. These questions need a strategy to them; please have a direction that you are trying to take the speaker in.

• For the TOC/Nationals: it is unacceptable for you not to participate in cross-examination. I will NOT rank you if you do not participate in questioning. You are supposed to be the best competitors in the country; there is no reason for you not to be questioning and participating in the round.

• Flow of Debate: I greatly value all types of speakers. Whether you are giving the authorship or the final crystallization speech, you are contributing to the flow of debate. PLEASE be sure to give the appropriate speech for the part of the debate that you are in. Nothing peeves me more than crystals in the 2nd & 3rd cycle and constructives in the last cycle.

• Authorship/Sponsorship: Intro should be relevant to the bill & organic. Indicate the problem to me, how your bill solves the issue, and the impact of passing this bill. The speech should set up affirmative advocacy. You need to address both the solvency and impact debates with this speech. If you set up a solid framework, I'll be incredibly happy!

• First Negative: Intro should also be relevant to the bill & organic. Tell me why the aff doesn't solve the issue and what the general net harm of passing this bill is. You NEED to address both a lack of solvency and a net harm; the absence of either will hurt you in my ranks. If a net harm is difficult on a bill, I LOVE points like complacency or the bill's failure in the political realm (being meta like that is something I enjoy). Be sure to either address the author's framework or CONTEST it.

• Constructives: I don't mind the speech structure here. Just be clear about your impacts, include refutations, address solvency if you can, and add nuance to the debate. NO rehash (I'll feel so sad). However, do not use arguments that are so nuanced that they are out of the realm of the legislation. Intros can be creative and organic here (I love humorous intros)! Overall, just do what you do best with these speeches. Everyone brings their own style to them, and they are valuable because of that.

• Refutation Speeches: These can be more line-by-line refutations. That does not mean just namedropping someone and going into your completely different arguments. You need to fulfill the FULL requirements of a refutation: address their point with evidence or logic and tie it up with why your argument therefore wins. I would also LOVE it if you weigh impacts against each other. I love the debate jargon, so feel free to use it in front of me.

• Crystallization Speeches: I'm okay with canned intros here. I prefer the content in these speeches anyways. You should either categorize the round through general arguments that have been covered or through questions that the round has been centered on. This is NOT the speech to introduce new arguments. Weigh on what the round has been focused on & tell me which side wins and why they do. If you don't weigh impacts in this speech, I just won't consider it as meeting the requirements of a crystal. You can and should introduce evidence that you use to weigh impacts. For example, "the aff wins b/c we prevent the most number of lives from being lost by decreasing air pollution" can be followed by evidence that explains how many lives can be lost to air pollution. Other than that, be VERY clear about structure in this speech & try your best to explain the round to us. The best crystallization speakers know how to posit themselves as the clarifying voice in a very confusing round.

• Motions/Parliamentary Procedure: It honestly doesn't matter to me when ranking whether you were participating a lot in pre-round discussions or proposing motions a lot. What will positively influence my ballot is someone using parliamentary procedure to help include their fellow competitors. The use of parliamentary procedure to shut out someone or to exclude someone WILL drop your rank regardless of how phenomenal your speeches were.

• Content v. Presentation: 80% content v. 20% presentation --> I firmly believe that this is a debate event. I will judge you accordingly. Please have solid warranting, arguments, refutations, weighing, and clash. Props to you for creative introductions & conclusions though (you'll definitely see me laugh if it's funny)! Though, you still need to value eye contact, an aspect of presentation that is even more important in person. It makes you all the more personable.

PF, LD, Policy:

• I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments, so you can consider me to be more of a traditional judge in that sense.

• I'm mostly comfortable with faster speakers, but I will indicate for you to slow down if I can't understand you.

• I will not flow cross, but I will be paying attention. Please be strategic with the questions you ask; they can contribute to your rebuttals if successful.

• I'm truth > tech. PLEASE make sure that you are warranting well & that you are weighing impacts.

• Speaker Points: I start off at 29 and go up or down based on your fluency and overall presentation. I will not give you below a 27 unless you have made the round unsafe or uncomfortable.

• You all can time yourselves for prep. I'll defer to your timing unless there are any issues raised.

General:

• Do NOT create an unsafe space (no sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, etc. language)! I will drop you in that scenario, and your speaker points will be quite low.

• Please reach out to me if you have any questions! I'm more than willing to clarify anything said above and to add additional information. My email: divyamehrotra08@gmail.com

• I'll be flowing regardless of the event!

• Also, feel free to eat small snacks & drink any appropriate beverage as you see fit! I know that everyone has their own circumstances, plus y'all are probably prepping a lot in between rounds & forget to eat. So, I'm not going to penalize you for making sure that you're staying healthy by snacking during the round!

• Overall, have fun! I loved this activity as a competitor, and I hope that you enjoy it too!

Hi! My name is Sydney O’Connell. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston, TX for four years. I'm now a senior at Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX, and having been coaching Congressional debate at Northland since I graduated. I primarily focused on Congressional debate and Extemp, dabbling in worlds schools as well. In WSD, I competed locally, as well as at NSDA Nationals, the Kandi King RR, and Greenhill. In Congress, I competed on the local and national circuit for three years finaling at tournaments such as ASU, Berkeley, UT, and more; I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year and TFA state sophomore, junior, and senior year.

Congress:

• First and foremost, don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I will evaluate you all equally regardless of your technique and style.

• Don’t lie about/make up your sources.

• Please stay active in the round. Even if you've already spoken, keep asking questions or getting up to question. It makes my rankings a lot easier when competitors are active the entirety of the round.

• Be mindful about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? If you find yourself in a position where arguments have already been said, adjust your speech to bring a new perspective to the round or wait until the next item to speak.

• I'm not a fan of one representative giving 2 speeches on the same legislation as it increases rehash and takes away opportunities from other debaters to speak.

• For POs: Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners after the first cycle. If you make a few small mistakes, it will not affect your rank, but if I see consistent mistakes it will.

Worlds:

• I am looking at teams that are sticking to the heart of motion throughout the entire debate. I want to hear a cohesive story down the bench.

• You need to have logical warrants, links, and weighing of the principle and practical down the bench. Examples are good but they don’t count as links or warrants.

• I would like to see a comparative worlds at the end of the debate.

LD/PF:

• Treat me like a traditional judge please.

• I'm fine with disads, counterplans, and plans.

• Do not spread. please.

Everyone:

• Have fun :)

• Be respectful and be kind

• Debate is an inclusive and educational activity, so if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or anything that is targeted or harmful to a community, you will get dropped.

Overall:

- sportsmanship is super important to me! work well with your partner/be civil with opponents (it's just a speech & debate tournament)

Cong

- PO on efficiency & equality

- senators based on speaking/performance quality & argument (both are equally important to me) + quality of questions asked

PF paradigm:

- not a fan of spreading (no need to speak slowly but just employ an understandable pace)

Experience:

- Coached Varsity & Novice IE events (domestic extemp, OO, OI, HI, Impromptu), PF

- Judged Congress, IE, VPF

- was a high school speech competitor (Lynbrook Speech & Debate co-president; SCU Dempsey Cronin Varsity Impromptu Champion, 2nd at Stanford Varsity Impromptu, CA state qualified in Impromptu; awarded in Varsity OI, HI, Impromptu)

- current Cal Mock Trial competitor

School Affiliations: Dougherty valley high school

I have been judging Speech and debate for the past 2 years

I’ll judge based on the debate guidelines provided. I judge each debater against a common set of guidelines.

I do take points/notes during speech/debate. Would like the debaters to use real world impacts as well as evidence (but not overwhelming). Prefer well thought cross examination and will try to find a balance between debate skill and truthful arguments.

be respectful- any sexism, racism, etc will mean an auto drop. above everything, everyone should feel comfortable in round

wear whatever shoes or clothes you're comfortable in, you dont have to look "professional"

weigh extend collapse

pls signpost - no offtime road maps unless youre doing something special

the most important thing you can do to win is weigh. tell me why your impacts matter and why as a judge should care about your impacts over your opponents

if offense is not in your summary, I wont weigh it in your final focus. make sure to extend the warranting for your argument instead of just saying "extend this". also if you wanna win the argument make sure you frontlined it, pls dont flow through ink

1st summary only needs to extend defense on args frontlined in 2nd rebuttal

turns must be responded to in the next speech

cant put defense on previously unresponded arguments in summary

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline arguments you are probably going for in summary but not mandatory (still must respond to turns)

dont go for every argument- collapse on 1 or 2

quality of arguments > quantity

well warranted arguments > cards

if something is not clear, its probably your fault and not mine, especially if its the main argument your going for. overexplaining >> underexplaining

i wont read/call for cards unless I am told to or if there was no warrant comparison done in round (but its better to not let me do that)

the faster you go, the worse my flowing skills become

im not the best judge for progressive arguments, but if you warrant them well/there is a blatant abuse then I will try my best to judge it( but I dont have much experience w it so be cautious)

Dont spread

dont abuse asking for cards to prep

be efficient with time when speakers switch / cx

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

Hi, my name is Anisha!

anishay2016@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview (if you don't feel like reading everything):

I’m in general tabula rasa, but don’t try to convince me that genocide is good or that slavery was economically beneficial.

My general principle is YOU DO YOU. Obviously, I have preferences, but I'm always willing to be flexible.

ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! ANALYSIS! Honestly, tech> truth (but I'm more of a FLAY judge rather than a circuit one)... but please warrant. Love phrases like "prefer my warrant over their card because...".

I will flow as thoroughly as I can. In general, I dislike spreading, but if you decide to do so please know that it's been about 2 years since I've debated, and anything that I can't understand (whether that be due to speed or enunciation) I will not flow.

I REALLY DISLIKE voting on someone's identity, so I would appreciate it greatly if you don't put me in that situation.

No to Ks and theory (refer to the LD section of the paradigm for more details)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Debate:

Remember to frame!!! And please connect back to your framing (a lot of PF debaters forget to do this). If you win framing, you will win how I view the round and possibly the debate.

Please WEIGH! I don't really have any preference in the sense that probability>magnitude or magnitude>probability. You should convince me which one to prioritize, time frame or severity, or some other niche weighing can be a good tiebreaker.

Tell me WHY you won the round. Voters are a thing.

Don't bring anything up in Final Focus that wasn't elaborated on in Summary. And don't drop an arg and bring it back later(if your opponents call you out and it matches what I see on the flow... I will not be inclined to vote for you).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Debate:

Trad Stuff: On the framework level, don't tell me which value/vc is better, but rather who achieves their value/vc. Be sure to know your arguments. If you do all of the basics well you'll probably get my vote (weigh, signpost, voters, etc.).

Note: I was originally a trad LD debater,I am in no way a professional LD circuit judge. What I have listed below are just general overviews of common argument types and my evaluation for them; they are ordered from my most comfortable to least (it's not perfect... but Plans, CPs, Disads, and PERMs/PICs are all equal in terms of comfort).

I accept plans, CPs, PERMs, PICs, etc.

Plans: Plans that go outside of the resolution but are still topical are great. Please give me some sort of solvency.

CPs: Provide me with the competitiveness of your CP. These should be independent advantages.

Disads: Give me a direct link to the resolution, not a vague one. Additionally, though I don't have a problem with unquantifiable impacts, if you go up against an opponent who gives me numbers, and you don't weigh at least within the 1 NR/2 NR or 1 AR/2 AR... it will be difficult to vote for you.

PERMs/PICs: Totally valid. Each side can try to convince me otherwise!

K Debate: Nope. The premise of a K is to get people to care about a more existential problem within society. So if you care enough to run a K, then you should also care enough to NOT turn the concerns it addresses into a means to get a ballot. That, for me, cheapens the entire point of a K and the conversation that it hopes to inspire. Now, if you wish to truly raise awareness for such social issues, you can decide to lose the ballot, and promote an in-round discussion instead, I would love to participate in this and be sure to inform your opponents prior to the round regarding such plans. So, if you're a debater that loves running Ks please strike me (sorry).

Theory: Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it's done well and downright painful when it's done poorly or unnecessarily. If you are going to claim abuse and play with rules, I will listen but don't spend your time there. I like to believe that abuse isn't just a catchphrase to get a ballot. If you run theory that points out LEGITAMENT abuses in the round (NOT, "oh their definition is abusive"), I will vote on it. On the other hand, if the theory you run is of the latter quality (whining about some debate rules that might/might not matter), I will not vote on it. So if you're a debater that loves running theory strike me (sorry).

Phil:*shrugs*, like all things explain it.

Trix/Performance/etc: Please no. But if you must, I will stay for the ride. Whether or not I vote for you will be a separate battle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Random General Notes and Pet Peeves:

Please do not state that if judges don't vote for your arg, we are now ableist, sexist, racist, etc. If you still do, I won't drop you as a debater (though it will be tempting)... but your speaks will be nuked.

Love clash! Ships passing in the night are boring.

I am a non-interventionalist judge. I will not make links, args, connections, impacts, etc., for you.

Speaker points: I award speaks based on content, structure, strategy, and actual speaking ability.

Extra speaks if you can make me laugh.

I don't flow CX. If something important goes down there you have to bring it up in the following speeches.

FINALLY: Make sure this remains fun for both me and you (no ad hominem debate, please!). I wanna keep it open for you folks; however, if u have any specific questions, ask me in the round. I will be happy to answer them!