reeceaguilar7@gmail.com

If you can't beat the argument, you generally deserve to lose.

(I'll never insert the reading of an argument I happen to know into the debate for you. This practice always irritated me when certain people did or encouraged this. I'm not supposed to make arguments, you are.)

Very tech over truth. However, the less intuitive an argument is, the more you have to do to explain why it matters and why you win.

Generally I'm fine with anything, but I place a strong emphasis on clarity and explanation. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, explain what it is and how it effects the outcome of the round. The more doors you close in final rebuttals, the better your chances are of winning my ballot.

Order in Which To Pref Me:

1. Planless Aff v Topicality
2. K v K
3. Plan v K
4. Policy v Policy (Despite having experience in this, I don't believe I do enough traditional research to be the best judge)

Final Notes:

1. I'm more inclined to vote on theory arguments than the average judge. This just means I think I'm less biased against these arguments than others. If someone won most of the substance but lost on condo or dropped vague alts I would not hesitate to drop the debater(s).
2. Clarity > Speed
3. Impact Comparison and Solvency Mechanisms matter
4. I'm super attentive to the flow, and I strive to minimize judge intervention.
5. I've voted on arguments I don't believe in plenty of times.
6. I have zero issues voting on suspect impact turn arguments if they are won.
7. Clarity is more Important than Speed
8. In Clash of civs debates, it helps to say what debate looks like in relation to an interpretation of the topic.
9. In Clash of civs debates, impact turning t requires either an explanation of what my ballot or what counter model of debate can do.
10. In clash of civs debates, neg loses when there is a poor articulation of an impact or effort to neutralize aff offense. Aff loses when there is poor explanation of an alternative model of debate or how the ballot changes what we do.
11. In K v K debates, presumption is under utilized --- the less you link the less you probably solve. The neg needs to explain clear distinctions between the aff's tactic and/or theorizations and what the alt does or does not do.
12. In K v K debates, I welcome debates on other procedurals like aff condo bad, vagueness, and various spec arguments that are designed to at least limit what the aff does and secure link to neg positions.
13. In K v Policy aff debates, the neg needs to nullify the aff's offense. Use an alt solvency, framework, root cause, or impact framing argument depending on what your skillset is.
14. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff needs to win that talking about the aff or that the hypothetical implementation of the aff does something important that we can't have if I vote neg.
15. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff can win a permutation, though it is probably dependent on the design of the argument. Pay close attention to the link arguments and anything else that creates or forces competition.
16. In K v Policy aff debates, I find teams are racing towards the middle and are fearful of impact turning link arguments (state good, heg good, cap good, managerialism good). If you are good at this I say debate at your skillset.
17. I will not initially judge kick, but if you make a good argument for why I should I probably will do so.
18. No need for too much hostility and confrontation.
19. I would rather not judge debates about things that didn't happen in the debate.

Background: I have coached at USC, Damien, Loyola, and now I do K research for MSU. It's worth mentioning that unlike most people who say they are flex, I actually was. I was part of an NDT Elims team that only went for Ks (UNLV AK) and an NDT Elims team that was primarily about policy arguments (UNLV AW). If I'm in the back, you have a wide range of options.

Talk slow, don’t use jargon, keep it simple and focus on conveying your arguments. Try to talk to me as much as you can, act as if you're teaching me about the subject, don't merely read your case/flow. No need to send me any documents. I don't respect arguments that catastrophize or claim that everyone will die unless you have very strong reasoning and evidence, all of which is articulated.

I have been a university instructor in English and Asian American Literature, and college-level composition courses. I also have published articles on literary criticism in the field of ethnic studies. I appreciate it when debaters are logical, use valid and original examples to support their arguments, articulate their words well, and speak at a pace that is not rushed. I also understand that debaters must be assertive, but draw the line at impolite aggressiveness. I congratulate all participants for bravely stepping forward and partaking in the fine art of debate.

I've traveled across different circuits so I know a little thing about every event. However, no matter what event I judge I will 80% of the time follow the exact scoring format I am given on my ballot. The other 20% is what I expect out of the event I am judging. Across all formats I strongly prefer development of clash -- as long as you're engaging with your opponents and promoting on-topic clash it will reflect in point distribution and my decision.

Below I've compiled a short list of what I expect from some formats, and if you have any further questions you're more than welcome to ask in-round;

PF - Strong use of evidence and argument analysis. I don't like it when competitors stick to evidence weighing; there's an effective way to weigh evidence, but simply stating that your evidence is more recent doesn't automatically mean you win the argument. I prefer engagement on analyzing the logic behind the evidence itself instead of surface-level engagement.

LD - Uphold your value and criterion. Actually discuss the effects (good and bad) of the resolution as well as whether there is a moral obligation to enact it.

WSD - A mixture of presentation and strategy are the biggest things I look for after clash in Worlds. Clash weighs most heavily, but you should be deliberate in your presentation and work together as a team to dismantle your opponents. I also like to see WSD-specific techniques, like points of clash or highest ground, but it's not expected.

CX - I'm pretty basic in this format; all I really expect is on-topic clash and strong argumentation. I'll also ask which side weighs more, so doing some impact calculation would definitely help you get my ballot. You can spread if you want, but you should always make sure your judge can understand you. You can use this email for cases and the such: hamza.bouderdaben@utexas.edu

I weigh impacts based magnitude, timeframe and probability

I'm fine with Policy speed but be careful about overuse of jargon or regional dialects.

I prefer Analytics over Spreading Cards without analysis or understanding of what you are reading. Explain your arguments.

I won't tolerate ad hominem attacks. Have good ethics but also don't be afraid to stand up for yourself if the other team is being mean.

Hi, I'm Megan! I'm currently an undergrad philosophy student at UC Berkeley--and yes, that means I'm a stickler for strong and consistent framework. :)

I have a background in Lincoln Douglas and Impromptu, having competed with Beckman High School. I'm a little rusty on the mechanics of LD, so please signpost for both of our sakes.

Some ground rules...

- Again, signpost as much as possible.

- If you intend to spread or speak fast, please send me a copy of your case before round (meganmnbui@gmail.com).

- Please avoid running theory.

- If your opponent drops an argument or makes any significant error or rule violation, it is your responsibility to make sure I am aware.

- No rude or aggressive conduct, including excessive interruption.

- If both debaters consent, I will disclose the winner.

Good luck and have fun, y'all!

If you're interested in studying philosophy and/or at Cal, by all means, come chat with me and ask me about it after round!

Updated 9/9/24 Post-UK

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

*Note for policy debate (HS and college): I have noticed that arguments involving non-utilitarian decision calculus have become increasingly more common in the meta (I.E. Kant). I am amenable to these arguments, and have read up on most common debate applicable philosophy, and have judged numerous philosophy-based debates in LD. However, I find that their execution amounts to non-arguments and conjecture about 75% of the time when there is little to no argument development, this is your warning.

*Notes and thoughts for the livng wage topic, LD: Great topic to debate in front of me for if you care about providing descriptions of how the economics of a living wage interact with whatever policy, k, or phil argument you go for. Link turns to k's need to be more than "the plan is good because it reduces wage inequality" and links to k's need to be more than "they think about the economy, that's bad." Topicality thoughts are pretty middle road, more open to T - bare plurals than in previous topics, but also be able to contextualize why whatever grammar standard you are apply is applicable to the topic. Unconvinced about T - living wage as a subsets argument, and unconvinced about T - workers to exclude certain parts of an economic sector.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Barrington AC, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, East Chapel Hill AX, Jasper SG, Jordan FJ, Jordan KV, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Riverside Independent JD and Vestavia Hills MH.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Cypress Woods MM, Greenhill EX, and McNeil AS.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 627 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.3% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.41, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.521.

I have been a part of 199 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.56% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is toinnovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Competed in PF at LC Anderson in Austin, Texas on the nat circuit for 4 years

For LD

Im not the fastest at flowing so if there is any argument you want me to evaluate, analytic or carded, please send it in a speech doc either to dylcanyon@gmail.com or whatever method is easiest/fastest.

Debate is a game, you can run whatever you’d like as long as you warrant why I should vote on it, I will do my absolute best to avoid intervening at all times but if you make any argument that is exclusionary or makes the debate space unsafe for the competitors, I will intervene in the round as needed.

that being said the arguments I am most familiar with are the following, descending in familiarity: LARP, T and most other theory shells, kritiks, plans, CPs, performance advocacies.

ill evaluate tricks, presumption arguments and similar phil spikes like any other argument but it might be reflected poorly in your speaks.

tldr (PF)

debate is a game so tech>truth

run what you want; warranted arguments are true arguments until I'm told otherwise

I hate intervention and will avoid it at all costs so please I beg of you weigh (that means comparatively and not just using buzzwords like “magnitude” “scope” and moving on) weighing is essential to creating a lens for me to view the round under and achieving quality speaks.

speaks are usually 28-30 and based on argumentation>strategy>speaking

speed is cool, im not the fastest flower so send a speech doc if ur actually going fast and if ur gonna spread then id prefer you read from cut cards

theory is always fun but do it well, DAs are dope, plans and CPs aren't usually my thing but they’re fine , Ks are fine.

General Philosophy (PF)

Debate is a competitive activity and so long as you follow clear rules (speech times, and obvious stuff), are not reading anything exclusionary or blatantly discriminatory, and are not a huge jerk then you can read whatever arguments you like.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS

Email chain and speech doc disclosure has really proven itself essential to me, if y’all don’t want to do so you don’t have to but it’s strongly advised and will be reflected in your speaks. However, this doesn’t mean I will use the speech doc or evidence sent to me to intervene, any problems y’all have with evidence should be aired out in speech and if there’s enough contest then I will check out the card and adjudicate myself. Otherwise, the doc is just for my clarity of y’alls arguments but should used by both teams to whatever advantage they can.

Framing

Framing is cool with me, but this should have a purpose, if I just hear "lives" or "cost benefit analysis" you will look like a clown. So make sure your framing narrows my ballot , otherwise its a waste

Weighing

Weighing is so so so crucial plz weigh and that doesnt mean empty impact calc but real comparative and ballot direct weighing to make my job easier

I default to strength of link so give me the cleanest link to vote on or give me a reason to vote elsewhere

weighing is always nice to start early bc i find that its far more substantive that way but new weighing can be done in any speech unless its a more technical weighing mechanism in which case it should be explained earlier in the round

Evidence

You can paraphrase but I'll like you a lot more if you don't especially since most paraphrased cards are just one sentence blips

email chain is highly encouraged and is great for improving ev ethics so see the speaks section for the email chain bonus

I don't like calling for evidence unless the text and credibility of the evidence is heavily contested and unresolved within the round, otherwise its your job to explain your evidence and its your job to disprove my opponents evidence ("call for it" is not an argument)

Extensions

This is debate, you should be sufficiently explaining your arguments which means that unless an argument is grossly conceded, I should not hear excessively blippy link extensions

Without warrant extension and explanation, you don't have an argument

Generally the bigger the impact, the more you should be explaining but if I hear that any argument causes extinction without an explanation of how it does so, I'll be unhappy considering my fondness for extinction scenarios.

Theory

Theory is great, I'm cool with almost any theory so long as it is not marginalizing in any way but I love me disclosure, paraphrasing, email chain, or whatever you can think of but preround abuse shells should probably be read in constructive unless the abuse is revealed later in the round and in that case important to the round

I default competing interps, No RVIs

Don't read theory on novices (duh)

If you don't know how to properly extend and weigh theory, the round will be annoying and unfun so please don't do that

Kritiks

I can't guarantee that I'll understand of the more complex Ks that have been popping up in LD over the past few years but more common ones should be a safe bet and I’ll definitely enjoy hearing the K, IF RAN WELL

Once again, don't run these on novices

Plans/CPs

These are fine mostly, but make them purposeful, interesting and not easily permable bc otherwise you have wasted all of our time

PICs are trash don't read them, CPs should also compete with aff unless its funny as hell

Speech by Speech

Overall do whatever you want but its probably better to be line by line til summary then collapsing into a more big picture FF but line by line throughout isn't really an issue as long as you weigh

Constructives - do whatever u want

1st Rebuttal - offensive OVs/DAs are cool, needs to respond to any framing, underviews or prefiat arguments from constructive

2nd Rebuttal - everything for 1st rebuttals goes for 2nd but any and all turns/terminal D are conceded if dropped in second rebuttal so its probably strategic to start collapsing if you are getting dumped

1st Summary - any mitigatory defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't respond to is sticky but terminal D and turns need to be extended, first summary can frontline 2nd rebuttal w new args but thats the last time i should be hearing new arguments

2nd Summary - extend all defense, offense and weighing you want in 2nd Final Focus, otherwise im not voting on it

1st Final Focus - no new args here except weighing, everything else should have been in summary

2nd Final Focus - everything should have been in summary but plz do not put everything in summary into this speech

Speaks

Speaking is hard sometimes and it doesnt matter as much as argumentation and strategy but clear speakers are still going to get better speaks

speaks are adjusted based on prestige and competitiveness of the tournament

>27.5 = you were either very rude or morally reprehensible

27.5 - 28 = probably need a lot of work

28 - 28.5 = not bad but still could improve

28.5 - 29 = pretty solid debater, can probably break

29 - 29.5 = very good, probably wins an out round or two

29.5 - 30 = great debater and impressive to watch, late outs or chance to win the tourney and a great model for other debaters

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate. That being said don't just say things to say things an incoherent argument is worse than no argument at all. Evaluate what your opponent is saying and respond to it in a way that makes sense. Respect your opponent and their arguments.

I will drop you without a second thought if you run a joke argument. During a college debate round I watched someone ran a coloring performance if you run anything like this getting me to vote for you will be very difficult. I love flair, critical, and performative arguments but it needs to be based in either theory or I need a reason why what your saying matters. I try to limit my intervention as a judge so don't expect me to do any work for you.

LD

LD is a theory and morality-based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why these impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis are clear.

I will say I think traditional LD tends to be more successful than critical forms of debate just because of the time constraints. If you're confident that you can get out what you need to with the time you're given then go for it. But the 4 and 3-minute aff speeches do make it difficult to get out what you need to.

I have zero patience for being rude to your opponent. Especially if your opponent is not as versed in critical arguments as you are. This is an educational activity, not an opportunity for you to pretend to be cooler than you are.

CX

I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts.

Topicality

You need to be explicit about what the violation that the other team has committed is. I tend not to care about fairness as an impact especially when you just make this claim in a vacuum. However, if you can tie it to a structural claim I'll be more likely to buy the argument. Make sure you're extending this throughout the entire round. I also need to know what ground you've lost as a result of the Aff being non-topical. Don't run topicality in front of me if the violation is small it will not be hard for the other team to convince me that they are topical.

K

I like K's I think critical arguments are important to increasing education in debate and I think that they bring a type of education that doesn't typically exist in the debate space. That being said do not run a K if the only link you have is a link of omission. Language is super important for K's so make sure you're being explicit with what you're saying. I think K's certainly can win against topical cases you just have to show why the impacts on par with nuclear extinction. I tend to find structure claims to be the most persuasive.

Performative Things

I think performances can be good but you need to have a way that your opponent can actually engage with your argument. I don't particular enjoy it when performance teams get overly angry or hostile to try to prevent their opponents from arguing.

Framework

My hot takes here are basically the same as topicality. I do think the framework is generally more true than topicality.

My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.

Listening is not an impact.

PF

I did PF I think twice? My same general rules for other debates apply - don't spread your event is not made for it and I'm more inclined to believe that it's unfair for your opponent. I will call cards so they better say what you tell me that you say. Also generally don't take racism and blow it into some insane impact because you want to win an argument. Impacts and links should make sense.

General

I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep.

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Keep in mind this is digital for the time being I expect you to understand your own technological constraints and adjust accordingly especially in regard to speed.

If you need to use a graphic description of SA to win you don't deserve to win.

I am a parent judge and new to PF judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

Jason Clarke

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and the University of Wisconsin.

Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days, but I won't be lost in a circuit round. Most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit,” so make of that what you will. I'm increasingly interested in seeing environment/ecocriticism arguments in debate (I primarily study environmental thought and philosophy), so if that's you're thing then go for it.

I will generally be more likely to vote for you if you:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge. (e.g. turning historical examples based on something that your opponent didn't know)
- Make sound strategic decisions -- know which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter.
- Don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters.
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make yourself stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like you're having fun (you might be surprised how often debaters give their judge the opposite impression!)

I am a parent judge, please speak slowly and use clear logic.

My paradigm is a well-rounded big picture: I am not a nit-pick type of judge but an all-inclusive big picture judge. I am not interested in how fast or slow a debater speaks. I want to understand every word and know where I am being led in the thought-process and why. I am partial to layman terms and intelligent discussion as opposed to flowery speech. I am an advocate of debaters who are authentic to themselves and their voices so they are performing at optimum.

My introduction into speech and debate started in grade school with public speaking and parliamentary procedure via participation in 4-H, 1st grade-12th grade. In this capacity we were required to present demonstrations, speeches, and participate in parliamentary procedure. In high school I joined the formal speech and debate teams as well as quiz bowl participation which added to my base of learning.

A University of Kansas (Jayhawks) journalism major, I was trained in the art of listening, critical thinking, asking questions, and forming quick written and verbal response.

I was given the opportunity to work with Nova 42 in Pasadena, California upon the academy's inception. I worked as an assistant coach and extended my teaching to Broadway Academy in Walnut, CA where I taught speech, debate, and critical thinking. I am also a certified substitute teacher in the state of California and have been judging the CA and national debate circuits since it went predominantly online.

I'm highly aware of debate framework, flow charts, Lincoln Douglass, Congress, and the various forms of speech from improv to extemporaneous, dramatic, persuasive, duets, solo, and everything in between.

Hello! My name is Mikey (he/him) . I'm former high school debater from Colorado. I did 3 years of LD, during which I qualed for nats twice and collected 2 bids to the KTOC. I'm familiar with the PF, CX, and LD debate formats. Please add me to the email chain if you create one. Below I'll leave general paradigms with further details if you are interested.

Email: mdolph@lclark.edu

TLDR

Be courteous, under non circumstances will I vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or oppressive argument. I love persuasive speeches, but that doesn't have to be your style. I'm fine with speed, so long as both debaters agree to it: and the debater who spreads, flashes their speeches. I'm a tab judge - but I also hate weak link-chains; so pick your poison. Dropped arguments are conceded, but that doesn't mean you auto-win. Please don't make me do more work then I should by leaving out voters/the role of the ballot. Please sign-post and finally, have fun:)

If this is a local tournament (or your PF) you don't need to read any more of my paradigm. Good luck in your round! Below I'll leave in depth paradigms for specific arguments if you're interested.

Trad

I'm a traditional LDer at heart so, I absolutely love good framework clash broken up into V/VC.

Phil

I love a good phil round, this is mostly what I ran in high school so I'm roughly acquainted with most theories. That means bonus points if you run something I haven't heard.

Larp/Policy

As long as you do impact calc this is a pretty solid strategy for the round. I find other argumentation styles more interesting, but that wont play a factor in my judging.

Kritiks

I love Ks, if you want to try out a K I'm the judge your looking for. As long as you can explain it well I'm cool with you running it.

Theory

If you run a T, make sure you opp actually links in. You have a heavy burden of proof, but on the flip side I tend to weigh Theory first. However, I am not a fan of theory as a time-suck argument. So if you run it, please be genuine.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

Background: I retired from Coppell High School a few years ago where I taught Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I am assisting Coppell at the present time.

Judging Philosophy: While I don't think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I try to ignore my bias as much as possible. I will listen to any argument you want to make as long as you have good evidence, and qualified sources. I expect weighing of impacts and any other reason why your argument is better than your opponents. Your strategy is your own business but if you expect me to vote for you I have to have strong impacts and comparisons to your opponents arguments that make sense.

Style: I have to hear you to flow your arguments. Because of this virtual world we are forced to live in you have to be clear and make sure you are being heard. I will say "clear" once. I prefer moderate to a little faster speed. Again, remember you are debating via computer.

I have judged Public Forum a lot this year.

f

Email – chrisgearing333@gmail.com – chain me up

i will vote on pretty much anything as long as you justify it in the context of the round.

I default to reasonability on procedurals and theory.

Non-CX events: I’ll vote on whatever, cool with speed, you do you.

Hello! My name is Kayla (she/her/hers),

Having competed in team debate on the HS level, parli and LD in college, and having judged for LD/parli/IEs/IPDA for middle school, high school, and college tournaments, I will enjoy most arguments you want to raise, so long as they are respectful. I believe that ethical communication happens when teams respect each other and don’t use their arguments to degrade each other. I am open to all types of argumentation but will drop teams for problematic rhetoric.

For HS:

I will vote on procedurals (including condo) and topicality. I prefer to see proven abuse, or at least a clear instance of potential abuse, for most theory arguments. Policy debate, or a K on the Aff or Neg is welcome. I am comfortable with speed, but am willing to vote on speed theory if the debate becomes inaccessible.

For College:

I would self-describe my style of judging as somewhere in between a "flow judge" and a "truth judge." While, in most instances, I will vote on the flow, if one team goes line-by-line and fails to address the thesis-level of the debate, I might break this norm. If the debate involves multiple conditional positions, I find cohesion in the round (slightly) less important: this makes the thesis of the debate less important than the line-by-line.

Theory is always an a priori issue to any other positions in the round. If you go for theory, collapse to theory.

I enjoy K debates and will be happy to hear them on either the Aff or Neg. I am also interested in your advantage/disadvantage debate, it’s whatever you think fits the round best or whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am less familiar (although somewhat familiar) with Lacan and Freud-based Ks, but I enjoy most other critical arguments and have a particular penchant for Foucault.

For speaker points, I will evaluate your content over the style in which it is presented. Speed is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote on a speed argument. Using language that is violent or degrades your opponents could also result in a reduction of speaker points.

Ask any questions in-round if you have more!

UPDATED FOR NPDI 2023 :)

Note for NPDI: My paradigm is relatively vague so feel free to shoot me an email during prep if you have any questions

tldr: cool with anything case/friv/K, but not sure what's trending in the circuit rn because I haven't judged since 2021

Background:

• Third year data science at UC Berkeley (currently involved in Model UN so always appreciate a good case debate)

• Competed for Irvington High School 2017-2021 (Varsity Parli Captain); consistently got to out-rounds and competed at TOC in my final year

General Notes:

• Don't be rude or disrespectful

• Don't use any argument to skew your opponents out of the round; be as inclusive and accommodating as possible

• I go into every round assuming I know nothing about the topic, so make it educational in some aspect!

• Let me know before your speech how many sheets/args you're going to run for the sake of my flow

• Fine with speed as long as it's not used to skew opponents out of the round (will indicate you to slow if I can't follow)

Case:

• Flow case is always exciting, but make sure you have a good strategy

• Have a good collapse (make it clear which impacts/args you choose to weigh)

• Links and impacts are of the utmost importance

Theory:

• Okay with all types of theory as long as the interpretation(s) and violation(s) are clearly established

• Friv is okay but feels icky if that's your only strategy

K:

• Fine with them, explain everything

• Familiar with cap, fem ir, biopower, general framework of identity ks

• Please take questions from your opponents if they ask them

Speaker Points:

• Awarded based on strategy, not how 'nicely' you speak

Email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions pre/post round at drishtigupta@berkeley.edu

Due to technical issues that may arise as a result of online debate, I request that you send me and your opponent your case and all other speech docs during the round. Add me to the email chain: ronitg005@gmail.com

I did PF in high school. I'd say I was decent. I'm a Data Science and Molecular/Cellular Biology double major @ UC Berkeley now (c/o 2023).

GENERAL PREFS

1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with spread if I have your speech doc.

2. I am okay with you running kritiks as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. No K AFFs, these are not topical. I prefer you stick to case debate because I understand that better and think it's more educational, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me. Exception: I think some form of arguing for ending the world as a K is pretty OP. Interpret that as you will.

3. Don't run theory. I think it's stupid and a waste of time.

4. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

5. Tech > truth. I will accept anything you run without intervention. Two exceptions:

a. if your opponent rightfully calls out a bigoted argument (i.e., something racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti semitic, etc), I will view it as such and may drop you depending on the severity and definitely tank your speaker points.

b. if there are conflicting pieces of evidence (LD or PF), and no one explains why their card should be preferred, I will call both and make my decision on which one to weigh more based on the merits of each (recency, methodology, scope, etc). Even if cards are weighed, I still might call from both teams if I have doubts.

6. I put my pen down for the most part during final speeches, so I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.

7. If you are running a plan or CP, please be specific regarding what action you are taking, who the actor is, funding source, etc

PUBLIC FORUM PREFS

1. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.

2. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1NC.

LD PREFS

1. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1AC.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• Making intelligent remarks or a good joke
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Making the round easy to evaluate

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

Hello, if you are reading I want to wish you the best of luck at the tournament today. My name is Javier Hernandez. I did LD for 3 years. I graduated with a B.A. in history and political science from UCF. Currently, I teach English and am starting a debate program for St. Michael the Archangel Catholic School. If yow will be spreading at the tournament today, please email me at jhernandez@stmacs.org. For the most part, I care less about what you run and more that it's run well and relevant to the topic. K's and theory are fine as long as they don't feel superfluous, but I feel less comfortable evaluating them than I do CP's or DA's. I want a clear voter's in round as I've seen many close rounds where debaters fumble crystallization and it causes them to lose my ballot.

As far as speaks are concerned, don't worry too much. They are somewhat arbitrary and for that reason I take a relaxed approach. You start at 28 and go up or down based on what arguments you present and how they are presented.

If you have any questions PLEASE feel free to ask me any questions about things not included in my paradigm before the round.

Hello! :D

I generally prefer logic and technicality, so make sure your arguments clearly flow from one to another (organization!). If space exploration leads to global warming, then explain step by step as to how they're linked. If you claim your opponent is abusive during a round, be clear what was abusive and explain.

Link and weigh impacts explicitly. Tell me what to cross off and highlight on my flow, and tell me why. You can point out voting issues or whatever, but please always elaborate.

My experience is mainly derived from LD, but I have knowledge of parliamentary debate as well.

Aff:

- Explicitly mention your impacts and frameworks - tell me why I should vote for you

- Road mapping is encouraged, helps with my flowing

- you can spew a sporadic of eloquently sounding words, but I will vote based on what I find sounds more logical in the end

Neg:

- You can read DAs, CPs, whatever - just make sure you have links to your arguments

General:

Please be respectful to your opponent, but aggressive clashing is always entertaining. If I pick up anything racist or homophobic, your speaker points won't look pretty.

Spreading is fine, but still try to articulate everything.

TLDR;

I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.

About Me

pronouns: she/her

I am a junior at Stanford.

put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu

events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)

I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.

PET PEEVES:

1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in

IMPORTANT READ:

• If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
• Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
• Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
• My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
• If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
• email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round

I’m a great judge for you if:

• you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
• you like technical, high speed debate
• you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
• you are amazing at T
• you have a well-researched stock case

K’s

I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.

Nontopical/K-affs

I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.

Topicality (not theory)

I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.

Theory (distinct from topicality)

Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.

CPs

I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.

DAs

Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.

CHSSA/Lay debate

• I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
• Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.

I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com;baylordb8@gmail.com (college)

Cabot '19

Baylor '24 - 3x NDT Qualifier

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. When debating I almost exclusively read K arguments so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 8+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot. Regardless of my background, I really don't care what you read or how you debate; do what you do best and I'll do my best to evaluate the debate at hand.

K affs

Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.

T

Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating climate change is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded (I really like politics tho). In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale. I want to see ~clash~.

K's

These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.

CPs/DA's

Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

LD:

While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

I have completed the cultural competency credential and I am ready to deploy the skills in debate rounds. Remember, your words have power.

Please uphold positivity in the round. I give speaks from 20-30 but I will almost never give 30 speaks. If you are perfect you deserve a 30 but I have almost never seen anyone deserving of a 30.

I think that the best debaters are those who effectively utilize ethos, pathos, and logos in their speeches.

Good luck!

progressive arguments - read at your own risk

LD debate:

Traditional.

I think the value/criterion is very important to establish the framework under which the round will be judged. I will judge using the value/criterion set of the debater who wins this portion of the round. The debater that best supports the winning value/criterion set will be generally the winner of the round, this is not necessarily the debater whose value/criterion came out on top, as the opponent may be able to show better supports. If neither debater can effectively show their value/criterion to be superior, then I will usually vote based on which debater best upholds their own value/criterion, which the ability to link into the opponent's framework also being a consideration.

Don't spread if you don't need to. I won't vote you down for using a style that I dislike, but it will cost you speaker points. While I can usually follow spreading, I don't care for it.

I try to write very thorough critiques on the ballot, or provide them verbally.

About Me:

I did debate all four years of high school, and acted as the captain of my team for two years. I participated primarily in LD and extemp, while in high school. I earned a bachelors in biophysics at UT Austin, and am currently pursuing a combined MD/PhD program, where I will obtain both a PhD (in molecular biophysics) and a medical degree (to be an interventional cardiologist), at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Despite not continuing as an active competitor while in college, I have enjoyed working as a judge, in person pre-covid, and virtually currently.

Email: dakshk97@gmail.com

About Me: I graduated from Kempner High School in 2015, where I debated LD for two years on the TFA/TOC circuit. I currently debate at The University of Texas at Dallas (Policy). 

 YOU WILL TAKE AN L IF I HEAR ANYTHING MORALLY REPUNGENT

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I dont care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so.

Theory:  While reading your shell, slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell. Make sure there is abuse in the round. 

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors.  I will say clear 3 times before docking points.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. ROB' are tight. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. Please explain the argument, reading the tag is not enough to extend, and just because you endend evd. dosent mean you win the round, give reasons to why extending that piece of evd is instrumental in the round. 

Kritiks: I love the K debate. Please be carefull in cuttting the cards. Should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it. Slow down and explain the story or I am not voting. Do read the K the right way or thats a good way of taking an L. Slow down on the tags and I should be good, if i say clear slow down and explain the K. 

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I am not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably shuffle my flows a lot if I'm lost.

Hi there!

I am a new Parent Judge. I would appreciate if you can be not too fast and make sure your constructive is organized.

All the best!

I'm a lay judge. Please do not spread and speak clearly, especially when reading any sort of statistic or tagline. If you are going to run any squirrely arguments, please take your time when reading the evidence so I can follow along. I would like to see impacts being crystallized in the round and weighing done throughout the round so it is easy to evaluate the round.

Evidence/Case Email: edwardf.kunkle@gmail.com

Flay Judge: I have minimal experience competing in PF as I was a speech competitor. However, after becoming the director of a program recently that is PF heavy, my students have been teaching me how to flow and follow debates. Granted, I'm not perfect, but I received my Masters Degree in Rhetoric & Argumentation at Cal State Los Angeles. I can keep up with most theory cases when applied properly. I am very fond of Critical Theories in particular, so if you have an interesting angle to share on the debate space, feel free to pursue it at your own risk. Spreading is something I will try to keep up with, but I prefer 200 to 250 WPM. I will flow the debate in its entirety and you can take pictures of the flows after the round is complete. This is for your education and also meme potential.

I take the character debate very seriously. I am not fond of shock & awe/performative arguments and will drop these from the flow entirely. While I do not vote on character alone, please be mindful of how you address your opponents. Treat them as human beings and more than that, separate the person from their beliefs. Attack their arguments, not their person. I expect all debates to be civil, peaceful, and more of a discourse rather than a rhetorical assault.

Of course, I will give decisions and RFD's after the round (even when the tournament says not to). While I do not take questions during the RFD process, feel free to approach me after the round for feedback. I do not respond to questions that contest my decision as a judge, but I will explain in great detail the RFD to students who wish to improve themselves for the next round.

Paradigms aside, I'm proud of you for taking on debate in such crazy times. Keep up the great work and I look forward to flowing your round! :)

I have experience debating policy, and a little bit of experience judging LD. I prefer traditional LD debate, and can understand K's CP's and DA's, but I prefer more orthodox styles and consider arguments of values and criterion. While I can handle speed, I give much more credence to clear coherent argument that doesn't sacrifice any rhetoric for speed. I love philosophy and will give heavy consideration to philosophical argumentation or references to philosophical texts. Absolutely no sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic behavior or commentary will be allowed.

email: connquisty@gmail.com

Phil: (Yes!)

K's: (Yes again!)

LARP: (reluctant acceptance)

Reading more than 3 theory shells: (please no)

Tricks: (NOOOOO)

I competed in LD in high school for Loyola. If you're wondering whether I value truth or tech more, my answer would be firstly that you should try for both; if a round becomes absolutely irresolvable, I usually try to vote for the argument that makes more intuitive sense. I care a lot about logical coherence, and the single best way to win my ballot (especially in the 2nr or 2ar) is by explicitly telling me what framing is most important and how you're winning under that framing at the top of your speech; if the round is extremely messy, this is doubly true, especially if you have a clever way for me to evaluate the round. I want important, far-reaching arguments to be well-developed, so I don't think that tricks are persuasive (and on balance I'd say that the development required for any given "trick" would devoid its strategic value). That said, I love philosophy, and well-developed philosophical positions (specifically moral/epistemic/linguistic/... skepticisms) will be fairly and gleefully evaluated. I love K's (identity-oriented, postmodern, or otherwise), and K tricks are also super cool and underutilized. LARP is fine, although not my favorite, but you can definitely win it; I'd suggest diversifying your offs if you want to larp against another larper (ie read a 3 card K or some theory). Theory done well is fun, but theory done poorly is hard to evaluate, so if you're not exactly a theory God just yet, try not to read too much of it. The same applies for T. Also, I don't have strong emotions regarding T-framework (positive or negative). I try to be nice with speaks, and if you want higher speaks, ask well-articulated cx questions and make smart strategy decisions throughout the round. Finally, I have no taste for aggressiveness or arrogance of any kind: You can be commanding without being condescending or rude, and if I feel you've crossed that threshold, then your speaks will reflect that. With that said, happy debating! You can ask me further questions about my prefs via my email.

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

UKSO Update:

I have zero topic knowledge. I won't evaluate the character of your opponents. I'm persuaded by good evidence. Paraphrasing is bad. Good for good theory, horrible for bad theory. Time yourself and probably your opponents?

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

For circuit LD/policy:

tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation is extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

At my core, I think debate is good. I think clash is the focal point of what makes the activity good.

debate thoughts

cp's

are logical, good, and neg gets them. I think they should have solvency advocates or very obviously solve the aff. I think condo operates structurally differently in LD and policy, and I have both run and am comfortable voting for condo bad.

da's

are yay -- if consequences matter and the consequence would be on balance negative then I would probably negate.

k's

are intriguing. My favorite debates have been critical -- I think throwing buzz words at me without warrants doesn't make for a compelling position and warrants are good. Please don't not read them, but if you do read them I think that there's a moderate-to-high threshold on me being able to explain it back to the debaters for you to win on them.

aff stuff

I love a good 1ac -- I think if you are referencing your 1ac in your 1ar frequently then your 1ac was probably well thought out.

I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.

I like impact scenarios

I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option

other stuff

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations ends the round with an L + lowest speaks; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

This is my first year as a judge in speech and debate tournaments.

Have fun, be courteous, and good luck! :)

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.

My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.

Learn from each other and have fun.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Heyo! please feel free to contact me at any time by email: madiejmorgan@gmail.com

IE: I am most comfortable in speech and have competed in DI and IMP. I do not care if you sit or stand (especially online) please feel free to time yourself. I am flowing while you speak and will most likely forget to give you signals.

Original or impromptu events (EXPOS, IMP, OI, etc.)

I vote on the structure. Make every point of your speech clear. Use links and please road map your main arguments. Show your personality in the speech through jokes, soft evidence, and your hook!

For interpretation events (DI, HI, DUO)

I vote on character. DI I vote on the arch from point A to point B. HI I vote on how you change between different characters throughout your piece. DUO I vote on the character arch shown with your partner and how you move together.

Please block and move around - the room is yours! I am fine with any profanity but, please NO derogatory terms.

Debate: I have done LD in the past but, it is not my strong suit. However, I am familiar with most debate formats! I do not care if you sit or stand (especially online) please feel free to time yourself. I am flowing while you speak and will most likely forget to give you signals.

I will vote based on the framework.

I like framework clash. If there is no mention of a framework I will just apply Utilitarianism or Patient-Centered Deontology (depending on the topic) since they apply best to policy debates in my opinion.

Tell me what to cross off and highlight on my flow, and please tell me why. Road mapping is preferred so I can keep track of your arguments.

Feel free to read DAs, CPs, Ks, or theory if you want but, please make it clear and have links to your arguments - no abuse.

Please be respectful to your opponent, clashing is always fun but, please keep it clean. If I pick up anything racist, homophobic, or sexist during any clash with your opponent, I will stop flowing and default the win.

Short version of judging paradigm/my debate background:

age 33 now, X Florida debater- both policy and LD ; had a very high overall country wide ranking and at least 3-4 bids to the TOC my senior year in LD (preferred event if policy partner not available); was recruited by a college policy coach to debate with them in college right out of high school, but after a summer of pre-season, I decided to quit debate to go “paint pictures” and play d3 & some d1 ultimate frisbee; now I’m a chef LOL. *other notes: speed is fine; but this internet is new so please be clear on the internet; I am/was one of the fastest speakers and excellent spreaders clarity wise probably in the history of debate; also being rude disgusts me try not to do that in the round- your speaker points will suffer, watch it happen.

being rude vs. being confident is totally different.

racism sexism antisemitism etc being nasty to women- those things also will not be tolerated; your speaker points will suffer as will your personal karma LOL; lastly interrupting without purpose even during cross x is not tolerated. unlike the last ie most recent presidential debate between the two “babies” who couldn’t control not going over their own time limits - we live in an organized, comported society. as a former debater and just reasonable human being, I was shocked to see such lack of respect for rules especially among grown men; as such I now especially expect better of our youth and hold the next generation to a higher standard- one of my ONLY reasons for judging your competition! *evidence and the "flow" and flow of things is very important whether it be policy, LD, parli, extempt, congress, I dont care what.

BE A MASTER OF YOUR CRAFT & WITH YOUR WORDS. those who do this will also be rewarded with appropriate wins and speaker points. any sign of hope or brillance any spark for the future of our country from you youngsters would be AWESOME. FEEL FREE TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS about specific judging preferences/argument BEFORE ROUND OR TOURNAMENT. just have fun please and do a nice job.

if you are a tournament director etc, someone looking to hire me i have EXCELLENT ETHICS, MORALs, and STELLAR communication both written and verbal in english/spanish; i am always looking to demonstrate excellence on behalf of you as judging indeed is extremely important to both the debate activity and NEXT future American generation; finding qualified judges who still REALLY CARE about this activity, the future of our country and planet, and about being a good person is super important for debate :)

i wish everyone a healthy and happy 2022; we are ALL in this TOGETHER. :)

best

chef Heather Nagle

updated for cal '24

email chain: nsaniruth@gmail.com

Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His), Berkeley M.E.T. '24, C. Leon King High School '20. Picked up a bid in LD, quartered at states, blue key, sunvite, and elims a couple places my junior year, took senior year off. Although it has been some time since I've debated, I have been judging varsity LD - Cal every year, Glenbrooks, Blue Key, Valley, etc - so I consider myself able to judge most debates. In the past few years it's been primarily LARP debates.

If you make good arguments with good strategy, you win. Go for whatever you're best at.

Prefs Shortcut

Phil/Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1/2 (used to be a 2, but all the debate I've judged in the past 2 years has been LARP so am more familiar with it)

K – 3 (explain warrants and taglines)

NonT/Performance - 4

General Stuff

I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Explain complicated ideas well.

All defaults are super loose; the round is yours. I'm about as close to tabula rasa as you can get. I don't default to a side, do default to comparative worlds, layers can be weighed against each other unless you tell me why not, layers aren't a wash.

Strategy is important. Pick the right arguments to read and collapse well.

Tech > Truth if there is some semblance of truth to an argument (is that actually truth > tech? No idea. I never understood this anyway). No, this doesn't mean you can't read bad arguments, but they still have to be arguments. The worse the argument, the lower the threshold for response and the more work you have to do to justify it.

I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. If it's earlier in the day, ramp up your speed. I flow by ear and I will not flow off the doc (though I will have it open).

CX is not prep, but prep can be CX. I don't flow it, but I do pay attention.

You can read a lot of evidence if you want, but I would prefer that you do comparative analysis with warrants in evidence.

Whatever you want to grill me on, I honestly don't really mind, but I'd prefer it (and I think you would too) if you just clarified the arguments in your last speech how you would after the round is over. The more you grill me, the more brazen I'll be.

When time stops, you stop.

Theory

No shell is "frivolous" to me. Some shells are just bad, others are very strategic because there's no offense to the counter-interp. Read the latter kind.

If a debater justifies competing interps, and the other debater concedes it but fails to provide a competing interp, I will assume (on their behalf) that they defend the violation.

I will vote on disclosure theory. I like creatively planked disclosure shells that make it really hard to justify that particular combination of actions - especially when someone violates their own disclosure interp.

Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering - with a voter.

If paradigm issues (drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness/education - although you can add more by mention/warrant) are conceded, they don't need to be extended (I'll consider it implicit agreement).

Topicality

Variations of T are welcomed - like extra-topicality. Just make sure you explain as needed.

Spikes/Tricks

Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. If someone asks you where tricks are i.e a prioris, and you respond with the nc you read and not the a priori you put in the truth testing section above where it says "now negate", I think your answer in cx is binding in the sense it makes me hesitant to vote on the a priori because of the way that it's framed in cx. Just be upfront. Winning arguments is cool. Being shady is not.

If you read a trick that implicitly relies on truth testing but then you don't justify truth testing, I won't justify it for you.

Clearly number spikes, space them, do whatever you need to.

Any argument asking me to grant new responses or evaluate the debate after that speech must be made at least in a speech prior to it (i.e. new 2n responses should be justified in the 1n, not the 2n). I default to evaluating the whole round (I can't believe this is a real sentence I'm writing).

Philosophy

This was my go to as a debater. I don't think as much about authors any more, so I've forgotten the nuances. Include how offense is filtered under a given framework (i.e. is it consequentialist? if not, what matters and why does it matter? when your opponent tries to implicate their offense under your framework, is that legit? why? etc.).

Fine with voting on skep triggers, also good with them being used as framework justifications. I like seeing metaframeworks, framework conditions, takeouts, hijacks, etc.

Kritiks

If you use big words in the tagline that the average high school teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic and strategic manner for high speaks. The 2NR shouldn't be just an overview or a 6 minute blip storm; do a mix of both that responds to the arguments efficiently and in an organized manner. Extensions through ink make me sad, particularly when they're accompanied by a pre-written generic overview.

LARP

If there's a lot of cards in the round like the 1ar reads new cards and the 2nr reads a new card or two, make the weighing as clear as you possibly can. Ex. If you say author qual, make sure you tell me what that qualification is or if you tell me your evidence is more recent, something that changed that explains why the recency matters.

Do more than just strength of link weighing. Please. Include the warrants of why claims authors make are true.

I'm fine with analytics against empirics. This means I won't intervene and say, this person has a card and you don't so you must be wrong; it's just that I'll evaluate it. In my opinion, it normally is easier to win if you have a card since empirics probably do need empirical warrants, but sometimes causal analysis to beat back a card analytically if it misunderstands something is fine in my book as long as you warrant it.

If you say things like "this thumps the disad" include like one sentence of what it is you're meaning by that in plain english. I remember some things, but debate has changed since when I was debating.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win the round. I list myself as a 4 however as I haven't judged these rounds and didn't read these myself but I'm not biased against these.

If something is an independent voter, do some work explaining why it is an independent voter and weigh it in the context of the round. Just (read: only) saying a phrase like "perfcon - it's an independent voter. It's pre-meditated murder" is the opposite of this.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Stealing prep is wack.

Speaks

I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Strategy is the main factor. Creative positions will also get boosts. I still think debate is about making persuasive arguments, so the more persuasive you are, the higher speaks I'll give you. Using CX well will also boost speaks.

If you had a bunch of ways to win the round, and you pick a bad option (i.e. none of them) and give your opponent more outs than they should've gotten, I will still give you the win, but your speaks will reflect the missed opportunities.

Scale depends on the tournament, in general I'll (try) average a 28.5 but I'm very sympathetic to the screw as it's happened to me.

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

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

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

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

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

I am a lay judge with little experience. This is my second tournament judging Lincoln-Douglas debate. I am familiar with the format. Consider me a blank slate with respect to the arguments. If you speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed, I will be able to follow your speeches and understand your arguments.

I will time speeches, cross exam, and prep time; it's a good idea for the debaters to time their own speeches, cross exam, and prep time.

Read citations and evidence clearly. When you paraphrase evidence, have the full original card available for review. I will make my decisions based on the arguments made in the debate.

Hi! I'm a college student with a soft spot for forensics.

Etiquette will be your only barrier of entry to me— disrespect towards me or your opponents is not tolerated under any circumstances and you will be dropped.

In debate, please avoid spreading. If you intend on speaking faster than conversational speed, send me the case (find my email below). Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I flow the entire round— including CX. However, I'm essentially a lay judge seeking a traditional debate. Roadmaps are highly encouraged. Impacts that are not clearly signposted will not be flowed through the round. Voters at the end contribute greatly to my RFD. In LD, I expect you to spend most of the time in 2AR weighing the debate. Unless specified by the tournament, I do not disclose after rounds.

In speech, it's content > delivery for me; the social message and how you supplement it with your speech is your linchpin. However, as an orator, great content will not save subpar delivery. Give your speech the best opportunity to be understood with all the tools at your disposal.

I do my best to facilitate your event and give you the best feedback I can, so I look forward to seeing your best too!

Add me to the email chain ↴

✉️ eleanapaneda@gmail.com

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

As a judge, i want to see you as a confident participant, so please speak clearly and precisely.

My email is shobhasr6@gmail.com

It's my first time judging in LD, and I'm a parent volunteer/judge. There may be topics/concepts that I'm not aware of so please be sure to explain as necessary. Be passionate about what arguments. I like humor and positive attitudes.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.

Please be slow and clear.

I look for good flow, argumentation.

Current Washington State University senior studying political science and sociology. Have judged three debate competitions this past year. My biggest advice is to be confident and make sure to take a deep breath and don’t be afraid to take a second if needed. No matter how it turns out each one of you should be proud and know you have all done a great job.

Hi there, My name is Sophie!

I'm currently a senior at Washington State University studying Apparel Merchandising and Design with a minor in Graphic Design. I'm excited to listen to your debate and feel free to go at any pace that works for you. I want to see you all enthusiastic about your topics, learn some new things and a laugh or two is always encouraged. Good luck and I hope you feel amazing about your debate no matter the outcome you all put in so much work you should feel proud of it!

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Top-Level

Qualifications: Cleared at 10 collegiate policy debate tournaments, including the NDT.

Speaker Points: 28.5 is the median, 28.8 is the mean, it will go from 27 to 30 and look like a bell curve leaning slightly to the right.

My mantra is that I try to follow community consensus. I imagine what most people watching the debate would think, and who the community would think wins, and that is how I lean. I dislike sounding like a judge with odd tendencies that deviate from most judges you see. At the end of the day, I am a debater first and foremost, and I just happen to be able to judge because I did debate. I don't like being a nitpicky judge. I will vote on who is clearly winning the debate. My own hot takes or ideological leanings will not influence the debate.

Novice -

----- Novice Neg Notes:

1) Split the Block: Novices always forget the negative has two back to back speeches (2nc and 1nr) and they should have completely separate arguments from one another (but also not contradictory otherwise it's a performative contradiction). Again, they should be totally separate positions, i.e. 2nc takes the counterplan and case, 1nr takes a disadvantage and kicks out of any other argument.

2) Note to 2N's: The 2nr must choose and narrow down. You want either a DA, or a case turn, or you could do a DA with a counterplan, but do not just go for a ton of different random unrelated arguments. Narrow down in the 2nr. If you're all over the place, I will vote aff.

3) Note to 1N's: 1nc and 1nr should not need prep time - you should have your 1nc ready before the round, and after you finish asking questions to the 2ac you should immediately start working on the 1nr. I recommend the 2nc takes half of the prep time you have, and the 2nr takes the other half. The 1nr should have at least fifteen minutes to prep this way, and it should be a really good speech because you can take one position and just solidly answer every single argument they put on that one position for a winning 2nr.

----- Novice Aff Notes:

1) Answer every position and try to not drop any flow (as in, any position - you can surely drop parts of a position in novice debate and be fine usually). Think about how much time you need to spend on each one in advance and break it down.

2) Don't drop your case in any speech, and put case as the first thing in every affirmative speech. Please do not drop their case turns in your 2ac. have blocks that respond to each off case position and if you can do at least that, you're good.

3)The 1ar only needs a couple good arguments on each flow so just pick and choose and go fast. At minimum, the 1ar must extend your case impact for 5-10 seconds, and solvency for 5-10 seconds. If you don't do at least that, then i will vote neg on presumption.

Varsity - ABC's

Conditionality: Unbiased.

CP Theory: Unbiased.

critique: the more u talk about the aff the more likely i will vote for u. dont drop their answers to your super important things, i get that you can drop stuff but it makes me sad when they have an on-point answer that you pretended to not hear. collapse down on the offense and close doors for me. For policy teams answering it, you win the round mostly based on good strategic vision, which are often times realizing they have no actual substance against your basic arguments. use your aff and answer alts, your strategy typically either needs link defense and perm or just really good offense on framework and your aff's impacts not turned or solved by them.

Framework against planless affs: Biased against it slightly. To compensate, I will tell you about what I think is a threatening [AKA winnable] T-USFG framework speech: Overall, I will vote for whoever is doing the better debating about debate, I promise. Less on the cheap shots, more on the impact level.Fairness, clash, education, or skills should be your policy framework 2nr terminal impact. Predictability is your friend to insulate against offense and limits should frame how you describe the iteration of your model over the course of a year. Otherwise, limits are an internal link to the above four impacts. Testing turns case because refinement breeds better advocates or something like that is cool. Ballot cannot solve because Debate doesn't shape things is a winnable argument. Their model links back to their own offense because it's not intrinsic to reading plans is understandable to me. You should mitigate their turns to the process of Debating because they fall back on relying on them in some way are the four key components of negative strategy in my opinion. I think Defense wins Debates, the TVA or SSD lets you absorb their DA and Case impacts with your model, and people can say they don't solve their case withgeneric presumption pushes or particular conceded cards specific to something they have said that their aff relies on. I know the aff will shift but something you have said will probably stick if you are smart and can actually engage with them.

Disadvantages - The 1ar must answer turns case arguments made in the block. Turns case is different based on whether it implicates the actual solvency mechanism itself or presents an additional impact that fits within the aff advantage, but honestly it usually doesn't matter if it's conceded entirely. Evidence quality matters more than quantity, but a balance is ideal and optimal for debating at a high level. Uniqueness frames the link for me but I can be convinced otherwise. My main intuition is that in a lot of situations, uniqueness either is so powerful it overwhelms the link or it loses to thumpers, so exploit that for me if it applies to the specific disadvantage. I think you should frame conceded internal links against the relative probability of aff solvency or your impact defense on their advantage if you have any, or if you are pairing it with a counterplan then frame it as any risk of a link to net benefit combined with sufficiency framing.

Theory - This is apart from CP theory and Conditionality. I often think reject the arg, not the team is a decent response to lots of them, because these ones are categorically less impactful to me. I am also am willing to hear defenses of left field ideas. I think textual competition alone is not too good but in tandem with functional it might be permissible, and a big lit base usually checks abuse.

Final Notes:

Good Strategy: There are many different ways to view Debate which are all "good". i believe there are a lot of different ways to understand what "good" strategy is. I'm honestly tired of having opinions on lots of strategic disagreements between different sectors of the Debate community and I molded my brain so much over the years that I really don't have any strong opinions about which strategies are good, in a sense of what wins Debates. I try to just compare community consensus to my own takes to approach my own potential biases as a judge. I'm mostly just an ideologically motivated person in the real world who tries to be neutral in Debate, rather than someone who judges but is biased within different Debate schools of thought. Just do you.

Tech first makes sense obviously, but truth first isn't just what someone arbitrarily dictates is the truth on a personal level - it's the framing and narrative of the Debate that isn't just about technical coverage. Most of the time though, when it's a simple Debate, Truth = Tech, because they end up being usually the exact same when the winning team goes for dropped arguments that are executed well and become true even when we might not agree on what the capital T Truth is.I flow well enough to know when something is dropped, but good cross-applications can save you. Giving a speech with more persuasive and narrative value, even if you drop a minor blip, is better because well-executed strategy always maximizes your chances of victory.

Don't worry about adjusting your strategy in front of me, unless you double turn yourself, not just multiple contradicting worlds. Debaters are already under enough stress as is at a debate tournament. Just debate well. I can recognize good debaters regardless of what argument you read and how you present yourself, so actually just be yourself and I can give you tips on how to just unlock your true potential based on what you already do, not based on what I want you to do. Just go for the argument that is both the most technically sound decision because of lack of technical coverage, AND the argument that is the most coherent in general against the affirmative you're going for and would be your A-strat against the best team that could be reading that aff.

Defense-Offense, or Offense-Defense it is better known, is intuitive to me because of how I have been coached in college. I divide arguments into Defense and Offense intuitively, but Idon't discriminate if your strategy is more of one than the other. I've seen teams prioritizing the latter in Debates, and give incredibly difficult speeches to fight back against effectively even though sometimes i think they don't collapse down and instead extended way too many different pieces of offense. i've seen teams give largely Defensive speeches thatI thought were pretty good too, and they were persuasive because they were directly responsive to the other team's primary arguments and largely controlled the direction of the Debate enough to actually determine the condition for the win. Most people do a mix, which is generally good, but interestingly I thinkdifferent styles are conducive to different ratios of Defense to offense, if that makes sense. But don't overthink it - you should just do what you're already prepared to do.

Background & Experience:

Competitive experience: 4 years competing in many various events, mainly Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum

Judging Experience: 4 years judging debate and speech events

General Philosophy: I like to see clear rebuttals and refutations, and good summaries of contentions. It's okay if the cross-examinations get a little snippy, but don't twist your opponent's words to fit your resolution. Speaker points are important, charisma will be rewarded. Framework is important. Progressive cases or unique frameworks will be weighed equally to traditional debate, and empirical evidence is always important.

Spreading: When in a virtual debate, spreading is almost always a no. If you're in policy, I won't hold it against you, but otherwise please speak clearly.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

About

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
• PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

Hi there, competitors!

My name's Ari. I'm a professional working in the nonprofit field and a former LD, Extemp, and Poetry Interp.

My judging paradigms for debate are closely aligned with a Game Theory paradigm, described loosely below:

As the name suggests, judges using this paradigm believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round. Games judges will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove that the aforementioned action is the most advantageous choice in the round.

This applies to all debate types.

Warmly and with best wishes for your success,

Ari

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice!! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

I mainly have a preference for speaking speed. I prefer speeches to be within the realm of a reasonable conversational speed.

I am an intermediate-level judge. I have judged PF a handful of times. I understand the content well but am unfamiliar with some debate jargon. I respond well to logical arguments and appreciate respect between competitors.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I'm pretty much a tab judge (typically judge CX). I'm only going to evaluate what gets said in speeches (and so I won't vote you down for arguments the other team didn't make). Tell me how and why to evaluate the round the way you want me to. Then win the flow with that framing. Also, clash is very important to me, so the team that has the best contextualized analysis that is responsive to the opponents' argumentation will probably get my ballot. Articulate how the blocks of evidence you read answer what the other team put on the flow.

Add me on the email chain: varunvermadebate@gmail.com

If you have any questions after a round, feel free to contact me with the above email as well

Have fun and be nice! (Important)

General

I'm good with open-cross examination, prompting, and flex prep, all within reason

Don't steal prep and try to start on time

Presentation

Please signpost between cards and on different pages of the flow.

I'm fine with most spreading but please go slower on taglines/analytics and don't mumble. The more you want me to understand, the slower you should go.

I'll say "clear" if I need you to slow down/enunciate more. If I have to do that more than once, you'll lose speaker points.

Impacts

I don't like seeing massive-scale impacts with bad internal link chains that don't make sense in the real world. Take a step back from the debate world for a second and ask yourself if what you're saying actually makes sense.

Kritiks

I enjoy K's and read some in high school, but be aware that I easily may be unaware of your literature. Make sure you explain everything clearly and cohesively. Contextualize links and tell me what the alt actually looks like in the real world.

Theory/T

I don't like voting on these arguments unless I have to. I like diverse affs. There needs to be proper clash and impacts. I tend to think about these arguments in terms of reasonability but may be told otherwise. Honestly, I'm probably not super qualified to understand all the nuances of how these debates should go.

I will not evaluate T unless it's five minutes of the 2NR. I also want to see a full shell in the 1NC (interpretation, violation, standards/reason to prefer, voters).

Counterplans

I enjoy CP debates in policy rounds

I generally believe that 2 conditional CPs are fine unless told otherwise

Explain your permutations when answering CPs. Don't just say "Perm do Both" and then move on

I'm willing to judge kick the CP after the 2NR (only) if explicitly told that that's an option unless the Aff has really strong arguments as to why that's unfair/abusive

Update for Nationals 2021:

I am a math and philosophy major in college as of right now. It has been months since I last judged LD.

I listen to all arguments and judge the round solely based on arguments provided in the round, unless I deem an argument outlandishly false or offensive.

If you make the ballot easier for me to decide, your speaker points are going to be higher. This means to make the round clear.

Do not assume that I am familiar with your position. A good overview and thorough explanations are always appreciated. They will likely win the round for you.

Please don't spread (that means don't speak like Eminem in Rap God).

Have fun! I always welcome paradigm questions before round.

Update October 23, 2020:

I won't say slow or clear on the internet environment. It is too distracting. So you should ere on slower

If you don't try to steal prep and instead start your speech right after you "end prep time", you get extra speaks.

If you are debating online, don't go as fast as you would in in-person tournaments! Slowing down a bit will only help you. Spend your time on the cards. Slow down on taglines.

Update Feb 14, 2020:

Have fun debating! I listen to all kinds of arguments. I was an LD debater in the national circuit two years ago. I am now a philosophy major in college. I am slightly tech over truth, although I believe they are really inseparable. If you have any other questions, ask me before round.

In Short:

1. Slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" and "slow", but if I have to say multiple times it will reflect on your speaks. I would like to be on the email chain. My email is yancheng_wang@northlandchristian.org

2. Speaks are given mainly on how clearly you interact your arguments (voters) with your opponents', and how you explain your arguments in context. Also, a clearly articulated presentation will probably beat a fast but muddled speech on speaks.

3. I will generally only vote on arguments and voters given in round. That being said, please don't run offensive or stupid arguments to extend that I have to consider my responsibility as a judge to create a safe academic safe.

4. Ask me questions before the round if you are uncertain about things.

5. Explain. Explain. Explain. Reading a prep-out from your coach doesn’t mean you are the better debater, hence it won’t mean you are entitled to win automatically. Argument interaction is key.

6. Respect everyone in the room and have fun! LD is fun :)

Specifically for 2018 Apple Valley Tournament, it is likely that I am not super familiar with the topic, so don't expect me to know your topic specific jargon. Explain well.

Full

I debated for 3 years at Northland Christian School in LD. I went to both local and national circuit tournaments. I never considered myself an excellent debater, but I think I have a solid understanding of arguments. I might ere on tech over truth, but only to an extent.

General

-I default to comparative worlds

-I prefer a more moderate/slower debate. I am ok but not great at speed.

-Give me voters.

New Positions

I love new and fresh arguments! If you bring up something new to debate and interesting, i.e. an inspiring framework, a unique diagnostic kritik, I would be happy and you could get more speaker points. I do this because I think it is good to encourage adding something new to LD.

I will rank how I like the following types of arguments from 1-5. 5 means it is my favorite to judge/vote on, and 1 means I would have a headache.

Theory--3

Theory should be an observation of what a good LD round should or shouldn't look like (your interp) and its justifications(standards) and the impact in this round. Hence, I would vote on potential abuse. Your standards/voters need to justify why your interp is a good normal/rule to have in debate.

Theory debates tend to be very muddled and unclear. There can be a lot of information in a short paragraph. That being said, if you can make the theory layer very clear, I would be more likely to vote for you. The following are my defaults, but they only play a role when there is no argument made in round about them: Competing Interps, Fairness and Education are voters, Theory is a higher layer. For RVIs, it is up to the debater.

Frivolous theory is fine, but I prefer not judging a round that has thirty standards and fifty subpoints and ten voters. Again, make it clear why you should win. Pick one voter to go for.

Topicality--2

I do believe that the aff needs to be somewhat topical, but you still need to tell me why—it is about you debating. If you want to win on topicality, it is vital that you tell me why your definition is better than your opponent’s. I think T and theory are the same layer, which means you have to do weighing.

Kritik—1

I like kritiks, and I think they are really important, but the interaction between dense Ks sometimes throw me off. I am more than willing to judge good K debates because they tend to be very clear and thoughtful. What I don't like is when you run stuff you don't even understand, which is shown when you keep repeating yourself without explaining it in depth or in context. In general, I am not a good judge for you if you expect to run something that no one understands and just win because of it.

I am fine with radical kritiks. I also like it when you are enthusiastic about your Ks. But if you are running any K outside of the realm of the common ones, PLEASE articulate and explain it well for me to understand. That means, I encourage you to run new, but you need to be good at it.

When I evaluate K debates, the most important thing is how your criticism applies in context. If you are criticizing your opponent’s position, it should be more than generic. What does it mean in context of the aff? How does the aff advocacy/methodology fall to your criticism specifically? What does it mean?

In addition, I do think the impacts of the K need to be weighed. I think K is a higher layer only because it re-defines what the ballot means. That doesn’t automatically mean that your IMPACTS are more important. Your opponent still has a chance to outweigh you under your framing, so winning the ROB doesn't mean you automatically mean—you need to explain how you meet and outweigh, even if it is just a brief extension.

Framework/Philosophy—1

I think philosophy debates are very interesting and educational. I think it is also the best form of debate to allow a good debater to win, not just good case positions or good cards.

In philosophy debates, I won’t vote on blippy arguments or arguments that are poorly explained. Reading a bunch of short arguments is fine, but you have to extend and expand them into voters to put weight in them.

I like weird philosophies, but again, you have to understand it first and be good at it. Especially for phil—I won’t vote for you unless I see your harms clearly linked to your framework. I consider skepticism as a philosophy (sort of), so you can run skep in front of me. But I don't like when you run it as tricks—I think that is what has earned it such a bad name.

LARP—1

I like judging LARP debates. They are usually pretty straight forward. Telling a good story will probably get you good speaks and a win.

There is not too much to say. Your extinction impact won’t automatically outweigh, unless it is the only weighing in round. A dropped or under-covered turn is not a guarantee for a win. You need to make weighing arguments.

I think that debate is the most fun and important educational activity in the world. I'm a former coach of a national circuit team which experienced a fair amount of success during my tenure. I have coached multiple teams who have appeared at the TOC in Policy Debate, including one TOC championship. I have also coached multiple teams to championships at the Middle School Nationals tournament in both PF and Policy debate.

I'm generally a "progressive" judge in the sense that I enjoy theory debates concerning what debate ought to be and how we can provide the best educational experience for competitors. I'm also happy to listen to criticisms and counterplans in those events which have not traditionally utilized those types of arguments.

I've been focusing more on my day job for the past few years and therefore haven't judged as many rounds during the last several seasons. Don't assume I know the jargon specific to this particular year or your particular case, even if it is a camp case. I'm generally good with jargon specific to debate and I can flow a fairly high degree of speed.

At the end of the day, have the debate you want to have, make it the best debate that you can show me, have fun, and I'll reward that.

P.S.: Please do your part to help keep the round running on time. I'll keep track of time just in case, but I'd rather that you not make me police speech & prep times.

What I look for: I am a traditional debater but I can follow theories and K's. The event will determine what I will value more in the debate round. For example, LD I focus on the moral clash and impacts and less on solvency. For PF I care more about the actual policies and implementation. I like when debaters weigh the two worlds in the round so that I can see clearly which side has more impact. I want a coherent and cohesive framework that aligns with the value and value criterion. Once you read a piece of evidence don't just move on. Please elaborate what the piece of evidence means and how it relates to your argument. You have thoroughly researched the topic while your judge likely has not, so it can be easy to assume they can see correlation when in fact they cannot.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire but if you reference a subject brought up in crossfire I will take that into consideration and add that to my flow. For example, if your opponent concedes a point in crossfire I won't write that down but if in your rebuttal you mention that they did, and you explain how, then I will write it in.

Speed: I am good with fast-paced speaking but if you plan to spread please share your case with both me and your opponent. I do believe debate is meant to be a dialogue between two people so I value clarity and understanding rather than just overwhelming people with words. Please be respectful of one another.

Judging Experience: I have done speech and debate ever since Elementary School and since I entered college I have judged many tournaments. I am most familiar with judging LD debate and occasionally PF.

Note for LD: Please do not run morality as a value. Morality is a set of values. So you are essentially saying you value value. Furthermore, whose morality are we to follow? My morality? Yours? Hitler's? Please choose anything but this.

Extra Note for LD: My job as a judge is not to vote for the better debater but to vote for the case that best upholds the framework. The better debater tends to have the better case but not always. Your opponent could drop your whole case, but if your arguments are incompatible with the framework, you lose. Please keep this in mind.

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. If you are going to speak fast, please send me your case.

Please be respectful to your opponents. Have a great debate!

Email: abigpandor1@gmail.com

I have served as a Speech and Debate judge since 2017. I will flow in debate, and prefer a well-paced presentation, with clear logic behind evidence. Eye contact helps as well.