reeceaguilar7@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

Very Tech over Truth - I keep a meticulous flow and hate having to insert things into the debate.

Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.

Write my ballot for me in the rebuttals. The more work I have to do on the debaters' behalf, the less happy I will be.

I am very willing to vote against things I believe in.

Note On Clash of Civs:

Whenever I judge critical arguments I try to act like I have never read the literature before. So even if I happen to have read what you are talking about, I will try not to insert my reading of the literature into the debate. I'm not supposed to be making arguments, you are.

Plan v K

Aff: Provide a metric for weighing impacts and defend why the aff matters. Make a framework argument for how we evaluate the plan. Answer the alt and crucial thesis arguments. Generating offense against the alt and opposing framework is typically a good thing.

Neg: Winning a link is not an auto win. Specific links are preferred. Give me a metric for weighing impacts and try to neutralize aff offense with the alt or a framework argument.

Planless Aff v T ---

Aff seems to lose my ballot when they lack a defense of a model of debate or reason why reading the aff is key to generating uniqueness for and solving impact turns. K affs either need a model of debate or arguments that prove reading the affirmative in the debate is key to changing how we do things.

Neg Teams lose my ballot when they have poor articulations of impacts be they clash, topic education, fairness etc, or do not at least make an attempt to capture or neutralize the aff's offense. Asserting _________ is an intrinsic good is not the same thing as actually proving ___________ is an intrinsic good.

LONG VERSION

Policy v Policy Debates ---

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded that reasonability is the lens through which I should view competing interpretations especially in situations where definitions are arbitrary and clearly contrived to exclude the affirmative. Impact framing still matters in these debates. Seriously, don't expect me to fill in the gaps for you. You need to tell me what I should prioritize and why when I'm choosing how to interpret the words in the resolution. For example, why is a predictable limit better than a smaller but arbitrary limit? Why are contextual definitions with an intent to define and exclude good? Why does overlimiting outweigh underlimiting or vice versa? Ideally one team will explain these things for me so I can vote as non interventionist of a way as possible. Remember that T is about envisioning what debates about the topic look like under each team's respective interp.

Theory - Most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. For it to be something I'll vote for the 1AR or 2AC has to spend time developing the argument. If a 5 second blip becomes massive in the following speech I will likely leen neg. Conditionality is something that gives me pause, but I realize that being negative can be hard especially when you don't spend a lot of time researching or going for ks.

Disads - I'll obviously read cards in these debates, but I want to hear evidence comparison from the debaters. Impact framing matters a lot in these debates. Does the Disad turn the case prior to the case solving or turning the DA? Is the other team's impact defense less qualified or applicable to your impact? Does the link control the direction of the uniqueness? Break this down for me, and don't put me in a position where I have to reconstruct everything to make a decision.

Case Debates and Circumvention - The art of robustly contesting the case has gone wayside especially with two topics that allowed and incentivized the neg to rely on one generic that solved everything (ESR and States). If I see a great case debate I will be thrilled. Things like circumvention are RESOLVED BY DURABLE FIAT, unless you read an argument that calls into question the legitimacy of fiat (i.e. a K). Otherwise, I am inclined to believe that Trump hates every aff so you need durable fiat to be aff.

CP Debates - Process counterplans are annoying, but negative teams that out tech and out debate the aff about its theoretical legitimacy will still win my ballot. In the end I generally believe that clever counterplans that establish another avenue to solving the aff, while establishing clear competition, are in great spots. Remember to give me some clear impact framing. Aff teams explain what your solvency deficit is and what that means depending on how high of a risk of the da the neg is winning. Neg, give me some clear judge direction do. I.E. CP resolves most of the aff but there is a low risk of the da what does this mean?

K vs K Debates and Clash of Civs---

Ks vs Ks - These are very fun debates to watch when done well. Oftentimes an excellent critique against a K aff has a link story based off of either the aff's theorization of violence or their strategy for resistance within the given debate space. Links are obviously important to establish competition, but those are only a small piece of the puzzle. If you have an alternative that mechanizes some form of material resistance to solve the affirmative, I need you to explain how it is distinct from the affirmative and how the links prove the perm would destroy the alt's ability to solve. Likewise, if your alternative is an analytic for theorizing or understanding oppression, I need to understand how it is distinct and precluded by the aff's theorization of oppression. Should you say that the alternative is simply to refuse the aff or some sort of a tactical maneuver that says I reject the aff on the basis of its complacency in X violence give me a framing device for which impacts I prioritize and why. Am I an ethical researcher? Am I prioritizing the best strategy to resist x? Am I an un ethical decision maker? What does it mean if I am any of those things given the imapcts and tactics presented to me in the round? I need to understand what I am voting for. Usually the role of debate and the ballot are pretty important in these debates. I do read a LOT OF THEORY and these debates excite me when teams do their research and deploy something I haven't seen yet.

Side Note: Presumption is a very under utilized argument in these debates, especially when the aff tries to defend as little as possible in order to avoid links. Neg teams, what is the relationship between the aff's method/tactic/theoretical approach and resolving an impact or resisting some sort of violence? Is there a reason I should believe that this relationship is minimal?

Plan vs K - I have been on both sides of these debates. I usually find that the affirmatives who are ready to justify why their 1ac s education is useful for some larger or material purpose is in a good spot. If you think that it is an unfair burden for you to have to justify why talking about your aff is good you should strike me. This honestly is a skill that most teams who were excellent at debating the k thrived at. Debate the k and have a good articulation of what impacts should be prioritized and why. Contest alt solvency or the negative s framework.

K vs Plan - Having a link to the plan is always sweet and preferred. My coaching background influenced me to make ks as specific to the aff as possible. That said, I realize that k debates now a days can be interesting even when the links are sweeping and super meta. These debates are still interesting, and I have gone for this genre of arguments. Remember to be clear about what your framework argument is and what metric for impacts I should use in why. You need to neutralize the aff s offense in some way or I will easily check out on risk of the aff outweighs the k. Sometimes k teams find innovative pics or alt solvency arguments.

Framework Debates for the neg- Framework debates get very stale after a while (mostly because I judge these debates a lot), but every now and then something interesting can happen. I feel like there is a way for either side to get my ballot in these rounds. Teams that go for fairness need to win some kind of argument about debate being a game or they need to neutralize the aff s offense through a tva or switch sides debate argument. Classic defenses of debate as a place for democratic deliberation are fine too, but you need to be ready to interact with the aff s impact turns to how society works. I expect you clash with the aff s offense.

Framework Debates for Planless Affs - Go the route of impact turning t if you want but i need to be able to understand what my ballot does and what voting aff does or disrupts. Sometimes these debates can be hard to win for the aff if the neg does a great job of contesting aff solvency. Other ways of engaging t could be providing a different model of debate or metric for competition that helps accomplish some end. Example, maybe the rez is a spring board for x project. Overall explain what impacts matter and why.

Morally Suspect Impact Turns - I've read a planless set col aff against the ICBMS DA and lost, so I know that it sucks to lose to these. That said, I m still tech over truth. I will feel bad if i ever have to vote on these, but if you lost you lost. In a nut shell, if you are that team that impact turns the k go right a head. I will expect the affirmative to defend the moral high ground, but if they fail to do so they will lose the debate. Morally suspect impact turns are repulsive in truth, but the aff needs to understand what components of them are problematic and explain why. I am never going to check out on X thing is immoral and anti _____ so vote for us. Surface level explanation is not something I am a fan of in clash of civs debates from either side. The best clash of civs debates where the k team beats the impact turn usually involves some kind of nuanced explanation about why the neg s metric for weighing impacts is premised on something problematic and therefore reproductive of something violent. I will expect some sort of role for evaluating impacts or some kind of metric. What does this look like? Maybe the negs impact turns are premised on some sort of consequentalist or humanist ethics and those metrics for prioritizing impacts are rooted in things that are bad. IDK explain these things to me in a way that makes sense. Overall these strategies shouldn't work against teams that are on top of their game.

Performance Arguments; If reading performative arguments is your thing, feel free to do that. Just note that I will still flow the debate and expect clear articulation of what my ballot should mean and what impacts should matter and why. I have dabbled in these arguments a decent amount of times, but there are still traits to these arguments I have yet to learn about. I will flow the debate, and the team that clashes with the other team s arguments the best is probably the one that is most likely to get my ballot.

Pet Peeves

1. Reading analytics like they are cards. If I don't get it on my flow, you don't get it in the debate. Enough said ...

2. Expecting me to fill in the gaps for a K that I happen to know. Heads up, I will NEVER EVER insert a reading of a theory or book into the debate for you. Judges who do this really annoy me. For example, saying the "native is abject" is nothing more then a buzzword until you unpack that. If I have no idea what I am voting for I probably will not vote for it.

2. Saying an argument is dropped or conceded when it clearly isn't. I have a good flow, so no matter how many times you say it is dropped I will know the truth.

3. Reading Andrea Smith (I have massive issues with this author, and I believe she is an unethical person.) That said, I won't dock points or vote you down automatically if you read the card without knowing about her history. However, I will let you know why you should not read Andrea Smith Cards after the debate.

Last Notes are tips that can help you get great speaker points in front of me

1. Keep the flow organized. If the k overview is 30 seconds and the rest is line by line I will be quite impressed. K debaters, don't worry if u can't do this because most people don't.

2. Clarity over speed

3. Tech over truth

4. Line by line is a good thing in my opinion, but I understand that great debates can happen without it. Regardless, I am going to be very meticulous about holding everyone to my flow. The 2AR can never become the 4AC- if those arguments were not in earlier speeches I strike them from my flow.

5. I like innovation more than anything when I watch debates. Be creative, don't just rehash the same framework blocks or pessimism cards everyone else uses. If you use the same ev find a creative way to deploy it.

6. Be nice if the other team is clearly new to debate or outmatched.

7. Debate T as if you really believe in what you are saying. This takes the boredom out of clash of civs debates for me. On another small note, you can't say debate is nothing more then a game and then also say its educational and influential at a political level. That doesn't make sense. Pick one or the other.

8. Have very clear impact framing and write my ballot for me. I hate it when I judge people, and they seem to think I'll magically fill in the gap.

9. Make eye contact with me at key moments.

10. Close doors in the final speech!

Here are some things I m firmly against

1. Physically assaulting or touching the debater

2. Grabbing the other team's computers or flows

3. Grabbing my computer or flow

Accessibility Note

if you have a relationship to disability let me know and I will make any and all necessary measures to ensure the space is accessible for you. I myself have type one diabetes, and I have had to inform judges of specific needs I had. If telling me in person makes you uncomfortable feel free to do it via email, proxy, or private message.

Boring Background Stuff - My bio is not that important, so it's at the bottom. I debated at UNLV for four years. My career highlights include breaking at the NDT twice once as a pure k debater who read planless settler colonialism affs and various critiques on the neg; the other while reading hard right affs and cps, das, ks, topicality, and presumption on the negative. The people who have influenced the way I think about debate the most are Roman Kezios, Tyler Snelling, Darrion, Matt Gomez, Nick Lepp, Nate Wong, Tom Gliniecki, Jake Thompson, and Chris Thiele. I most commonly judge k v k and clash of civs debates, but I can judge policy debates effectively as well. My senior year gave me plenty of exposure to these at a high level. So rest assured my flowing skills are sharp enough to keep up with the speed and precision of a pure policy style debate.

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 3/18/23 Post-UIL CX State

Hi everyone! I’m Holden (They/He)

Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23 (Go Mean Green)

If you are a senior and gradauting this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you. If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

Please put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

The short version:

I truly do not have an issue in what style of debate you decide to partake in, I am dogmatic against dogmatism as I think it is a bad model of debate. That being said, I prefer debates not end up being very theory shell heavy (despite what my judging history might suggest otherwise). This is not to say that I will not vote for whatever shell you decide to run (barring some caveats that are mentioned below), but rather I would much rather judge debates that are centered around substance (namely a da/cp, a k, or an nc). Despite that, I have voted for just about every argument under the sun. Bad arguments exist, and I dislike them, but the onus is on you for calling out and explaining why those arguments are bad.

Respect your opponents pronouns or else. I have no tolerance for individuals not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get one chance, with your speaks being docked that one time. If you do it again after that, then my ballot is gone even if there is no argument made. With that in mind, I am also extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.

If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.

Tech>Truth

Yes speed, but clarity is important as well

For your pref sheets:

Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1

K – 1

Policy – 1

Phil – 1

T/Theory – 1

Tricks – 4

Trad – 5/Strike

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

In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox just less grumpy, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.

Some individuals who have shaped how I debate/have coached me: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, and Shawn Moore (if you know who this is then you are way too old to be debating in front of me)

Some of my former students who share the majority of my opinions/you might pref me similar to: Vishal Sivamani, William Walker, Armaan Christ, and Graham Johnstone.

Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.

I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please

The long version:

Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?

Hi, I'm Holden! I did LD and policy throughout high school, I wasn't too involved with the national circuit because of financial constraints but I did well at a few big tournaments during my high school career. I now attend the University of North Texas, where I study psychology and philosophy. In addition, I compete in NFA-LD (literally a one person policy event), I have had some moderate success (qualified for and made it to octafinals of the national tournament). I currently coach and judge national circuit LD, where I have judged 500+ debates since 2020. In addition, I have coached students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and late elims of national tournaments (including elims and top speaker of the TOC).

Nowadays, most of my research is on the k side of the argument spectrum. However, I often say that politics updates are my catharsis, and have cut and coached students to go for arguments in every style of debate. This includes theory, policy, tricks, phil, and kritikal positions.

Call me Holden or judge (I prefer Holden, and judge will also do). Anything more formal (Mr. Bukowsky, Sir, etc.) makes me uncomfortable, and may result in your speaks being docked.

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). For LD I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and coach Barrington AC, Clear Lake AA, Jordan FJ, Los Altos BF, San Mateo ZS, Sidwell SW, and Unionville IQ. For policy I work with Sidwell/Georgetown Independent WS.

I have been previously affiliated with: Cabot, Perry JA, Plano West AW, and Unionville IQ.

What does Holden think of debate?

Debate is a game with educational implications. I love this activity very much, and take my role in it very seriously. I think it is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I am not very ideological in a way that translates to how I evaluate the debate (barring some exceptions) because it's not my place to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. That means please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted that violent or warrantless arguments are exceptions). As such, I consider there to be two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preferences I may have should not matter if you make the argument for me, if I have to default to something then that means that you did not do your job.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.

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

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key

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

I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be.

To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, 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."

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.

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

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

I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.

I dislike t - bare plurals.

How has Holden voted?

Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged exactly 551 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 54.08% of the time.

My average speaks for the 2022-2023 season have been 28.532, across my entire time judging they are at 28.507

I have been apart of 140 panels, of those I have sat exactly 17 times (Harvard was rough).

What will Holden never vote on?

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

Arguments that say oppression is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments:

Contrary to my reputation, I actually quite enjoy and have a good amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do quite a bit of research for policy arguments, and do topic research on that side of ground very often. I love a good disad and 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 is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, I think most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about this and love when people make these arguments

Impact turn debates are some of my favorite, give me more of them please and thank you

I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker

I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier

I enjoy really well researched process counterplans. Absolutely makes me smile when the evidence is topic specific, and has great solvency advocates.

Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please

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

For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy

Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please

K’s:

A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. I think that certain 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 question are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you get to do whatever with the argument. If you are reading this critique as a non-black person, this becomes the round. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.

This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the k need to go for framework and extinction outweighs more

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

I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech

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

I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.

Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year (for example, if you're reading argument related to Settler Colonialism and can't name the 6 settler moves to innocence)

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

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

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Abolition, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, Queer-pessimism, Disability literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar

K-Aff’s:

Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you

Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.

For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, etc. and quite enjoy judging these debates

Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks

T-Framework/T-USFG:

Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you

I am of the opinion that most framework debates take place on an impact level, with the internal link to those impacts most of the time 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, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate

Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders

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

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

Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):

I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy

My normal defaults for these debates are:

- 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 shells

Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument

For all that is holy get over Nebel T and run topic contextual interps, I've heard the same limits v pics debate about 40 times and I'm tired of it

Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please

You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad

Weigh your internal links please and thank you

Theory:

I judge this type of debate a lot, and probably more than most judges. So you'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I just ask that you don't blitz through analytics and make good indepth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to the standards you're going for. I find that a well explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me be conceputally more persuaded by the impacts you go for

Conditionality is good if you win it's such. 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 right ahead but just dismissing condo bad like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. To clarify, I think condo is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it better be robust if you plan on using abusing conditionality vehemently

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

- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters

- 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 say that implicate 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)

Here are my defaults for counterplan theory:

- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good

- PICs = good

- Process CP's = good

- Consult CP's = bad

- States CP's = good

- Actor/Agent CP's = good

- Object Fiat = bad

Tricks debate:

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments that are based on intense arguments of logic. I need this explanation to be toned down so I can actually follow what’s going on, these make my head hurt and I did not pay enough attention in my logic class to know/understand exactly what you're talking about.

I think that my thoughts about this are "please don't if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate you can go ham"

I can judge these debates, and have coached debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not. I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to be happy about the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am"

Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations

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 or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.

Tricks versus identity-based affirmatives is violent, and bad. Stop it.

Phil:

I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.

Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing

In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates

Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long

Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza

I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty

Independent Voters:

Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:

1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening

2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate

This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.

Traditional/Lay Debate:

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

Evidence Ethics:

I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.

Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says

For the policy kids-

Full disclosure, I am normally a circuit LD judge but have been judging policy more lately (judged at grapevine and a lot of rounds at camp this year). I did policy in high school, and research/run policy arguments in college now so I will know what's going on.Most of my takes should be summarized above, I think my takes on framework aren’t as dogmatic as I once thought, I think this is because I’ve noticed how much better impact explanation occurs in policy and as such any predispositions listed above can be easily overcome by just solid impact calculus when going for T versus critical affirmatives (no joke framework has a 100% win rate in front of me in policy). I also think I’m better at evaluating policy throw-downs than I thought/once was. All that matters is link contextualization, developing a turns case argument, and implicating your arguments to help resolve the rest of the flow. I like impact turns (dedev, heg good/bad, etc.), I like debaters that make rounds clean, and I like judge instruction. Framework isn't genocide but it's not the holy grail, clash > fairness.

Also neutral on questions such as condo, if you win it you win it, being dogmatic on these questions are bad takes.

- Sign post please

- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)

- Yes open cross

Speaks:

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

Across over 200+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.5 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy

A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges

I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below

They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -

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

29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 About 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

Challenges:

Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)

Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K

Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K

Tech---X-------Truth

Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin

Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read

Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this

Condo--X--------No condo

Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs

Overviews--------X--LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact-----X-----Fairness is definitely not an impact

Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose

"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)

Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework

Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant

Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots

Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face

ClashX----------Cowardice

Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things

Speaker point fairy------X----Speaker point goblin

LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool

"Judge/Mr. Bukowsky"----------X"Holden"

Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Happy debating!!!!!!!!!

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

dcanyon@luc.edu for speech docs

tldr

debate is a game so tech>truth

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

substance is meh, run it at your own risk

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 cool, Ks are pretty great but if it is a more traditional Ks I'll probably be cool (Cap, Set Col, Security, fem etc.)

General Philosophy

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 be a judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

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

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.

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
-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
Policy Debate Paradigm

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
19 years high school debate coach (judged CX at nationals seven years and LD four years)

Paradigm:
I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I am open to other paradigms if they are clearly articulated and defended. I expect clear framework and voters on procedural and non-policy arguments (i.e. kritiks, and T) so that I understand if they are pre-fiat or post-fiat. I also prefer impact framing for kritiks and DAs so that I know how you want me to weigh them against any other impacts in the round. I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks (though sometimes I have found they are not run very well and hence are harder to vote for), but remember that in the absence of clear framework arguments on K or voters on T, I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. 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. 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. Remember, I'm usually not reading along with you as you spread and I need to be able to hear what you are saying.

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.

Last updated Nov 22, 2022

Hi, I’m Doron. I previously coached LD at Millburn High School (NJ) and currently coach at Mountain View/Los Altos (California). I’m also currently a graduate student in English literature at UW-Madison.

Short version:

I like (almost) all kinds of debate, but especially k debate (including any kind of performance debate or critical aff).

• If you like (relatively slow) k debate and/or don't like "frivolous" theory/ tricks, you'll probably think I'm a good judge for you.
• If you like very fast and very technical debate with lots of theory, tricks, and up-layering your opponent, you will very likely think I am not a good judge for you.

Longer version:

Speed

I really don’t like speed very much. There are a few reasons I might point to, but really the most important is that I’m simply not very good at following fast rounds.My threshold for understanding speed is very significantly lower than most judges with circuit experience. To give you some context: if we could compare a typical conversation pace to something like a casual stroll and top-speed circuit spreading to an olympic sprint, I would say my comfort level tends to max out at what I would describe as a brisk jog. I can understand and follow a couple clicks faster than the average lay round, but anything more than that will start to undermine my ability to properly evaluate the round. I should also make it very clear that I’m happy to be on the email chain, but I’m not going to flow from your speech doc. I might refer to it for something like an author name, but if I can’t understand you I’m not going to just read the speech doc for your entire AC.

This doesn’t mean I will automatically vote against very fast debaters.But I will only vote for arguments that I understand.

I am not going to say clear or slow unless you specifically ask me to before the round. I have yet to encounter a debater who actually slows down for more than 10-15 seconds before resuming the exact same speed they were going before, so I find that yelling clear is just kind of jarring and more trouble than it's worth.

k/critical arguments/phil

This is the kind of argumentation I'm most interested in. My favorite rounds over the last 13+ years of my involvement in debate have been, without fail, ones that left me feeling like I learned something new. I find k debate to be a particularly effective way to cultivate that kind of feeling. This means that my favorite mode or "version" of k debate is one that isn't just trying to be "competitive" or "strategic," but is genuinely interested in challenging the perspectives of everyone involved in the round (your opponent, me, and even yourself) by giving us a new way to understand the topic and/or the world. Accordingly, If you read a k that isn't just designed to "win" the round but that also operates as an insightful pedagogical tool -- especially one that, by the end of the round, I feel genuinely helped me learn something I didn't know or didn't understand before -- it is very, very likely I will vote for you.

I've never judged a k debater who didn't spread, but I'm not sure why so many debaters seem to have made the assumption that one needs to spread in order to run critical arguments. As someone who spends most of my time with various kinds of critical theory, I can assure you that you can in fact read and discuss it below 400 words per minute. If you compellingly defend pretty much any kind of critical arguments (on either aff or neg) without spreading, you will very likely end up with a W and at least 29 speaker points.

I will similarly reward k debaters who focus on engagement rather than confusion and evasion with high speaker points. Trying to win the round by insisting “my opponent fundamentally misunderstands the k” (or some similar phrasing) and thus trying to prevent/preclude their arguments rather than actually engaging them isn’t a very good way to get my ballot. If you run a k, I won’t expect you to know everything about the critical tradition behind the k you're running, but I will expect you to answer basic questions about the k in cx without being evasive. You should, at the very least, be able to explain the basic idea of the k in clear, plain language. A good rule of thumb if I'm judging you is to imagine that you aren't just trying to "win" the k, but trying to "teach" the k -- that includes being clear about what the k indicts and why.

“Traditional/lay” debate

Though it isn’t my favorite style of argumentation, I’d guess I have a significantly higher level of appreciation for good “traditional” debate than most circuit judges. This is especially true when debaters demonstrate really strong fundamentals (efficiently answering arguments so as to create good flow coverage even without spreading, being a genuinely compelling and polished speaker, presenting a strong strategic understanding of how arguments interact with each other).

“LARP”-y stuff

I like these debates also. It's also worth knowing that just because I like k debate doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote against you if you're a LARP debater in a K round. I vote against k debaters pretty regularly when LARP debaters expose a lack of topic knowledge or general strategic failures in the k.

Theory/tricky stuff

I say “(almost) all kinds of debate” above because I don’t really like evaluating theory debate, nor would I say I’m especially good at it. Unless you really convince me that you're responding to a genuinely abusive position and wouldn't be able to engage without theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it even if you’re technically ahead. Obviously, if you primarily consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I'd recommend not preffing me.

Other/random:

• I am not going to vote aff because "when I tell you my name your first instinct is to believe me."
• I categorically refuse, under any circumstances and on any topic, to vote for any version of the argument that migration to Mars/another planet solves environmental harms on Earth.

Things that will get you high speaker points:

• Any debater who reads a critical argument and a) demonstrates a genuine knowledge of the relevant lit (i.e. explains the argument clearly and concisely both during speeches and in cross-ex), b) gives precise, original, topic-specific links, and c) does all of this without spreading will be well on their way to 30 speaker points. I’ve yet to see it happen, but I’ll be glad when I do.
• I’ll give 30 speaker points to any debater who, over the course of the round, causes me to rethink (for the better) any component of how I conceptually understand or approach debate.
• I will give a 30 to any debater who reads an argument, k or otherwise, that genuinely changes how I see or understand any aspect of the world.
• Make genuinely insight, original, and interesting arguments. This doesn’t mean you have to talk about something entirely new that I’ve never heard before: it might be a new spin on something I’m familiar with. For example: a cap k that has really interesting links and establishes a perspective that debate doesn’t typically engage.
• Alternatively, read an argument I’ve seen a hundred times, but make it the best version of that argument I've ever heard.
• The surest way to get high speaker points from me is to make me feel like I've learned something new from watching you speak. This could be about pretty much anything (economics, politics, etc.) but is especially true of philosophy / critical arguments.

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

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 yours 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 competed in policy for all 4 years of high school and advanced to outrounds at both UIL and TFA state in CX. I have extensive experience with reading and judging kritikal and policy arguments. I’ll 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 and pre-fiat arguments or whatever you want to call them

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!

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

Background:

• First year intending data science + business administration 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 opps 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

email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

2022 CEDA Finalist

I debated for four years in high school and continue to debate in college. I primarily run Kritikal race theory arguments such as Wilderson and Moten, although I have dabbled in the Baudrillard and high theory stuff. If you ever wanna talk about any specific body of literature talk to me after the round or feel free to shoot me an email. I like debate and generally try to make this community a welcoming space for those that choose to participate. As a result, I hope you enjoy your time in your rounds and the activity broadly because it is truly a great place.

Thoughts on debate overall- As someone who has been in environments in which his arguments are not being taken seriously, I want to push debate to counter these behaviors. To me, the role of a judge is to consider and adapt one's beliefs to the arguments presented. As a result, I will do my absolute best to fully consider the arguments made, render the best decision I can, and give comments that I think will aid you in your future debates. With that being said, I am definitely a better judge for certain arguments than others and I thus have my own preferences with arguments. Honestly if you can flow, do line by line, and have arguments that make sense you'll be good and should not tailor a particular strategy to me.

Thoughts on NATO/Emerging tech- has the potential to be one of the cooler topics that I have personally judged. I generally don't enjoy IR topics, but I have to admit I have enjoyed doing both policy and K research on this topic. Did a policy lab for three weeks and kritikal lab for four weeks, so in theory, I know what you're talking about and will be able to point you in the right direction during the RFD. This topic is complex but also somewhat intuitive, so I hope at the end of the day, you have fun and take risks that other topics may not traditionally allow.

Thoughts on online debate- It can be good and it can be really really bad. 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/Impacts- Case debate is generally important; you should have some way to implicate the case whether it is turns case on a DA, a CP that solves, or just going for case or solvency takeouts. If it's a K debate, I still care, but I think teams should explain what the actual impact to a given case argument is. For instance, if you want the state can be good, explain why that matters beyond just it means "the AFFwas wrong about something". Explain why it implicates solvency, why it means the method they've chosen to resolve their impact might be flawed, or how it implicates another flow within the debate.

DAs- For the most part I understand DAs although I'm probably rusty on the political scenes, I think I get the main ideas. To me the most important things are link and internal link work so focus there.

CPs- I'm cool with whatever for the most part as long as you have a solvency advocate. I like Perms though, and think judge kicking sorta makes sense but can defs be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality- Definitely more AFF-biased. I honestly think reasonability and predictability arguments for the AFF trump most NEG args. With that being said if you think an AFFis blatantly untopical, odds are I do too so go for it if you think it's the right 2NR. I greatly prefer a ground 2NR to JUST a limits 2NR. My ideal combines the two but that's probs just a me thing.

Ks- I'm fine with Ks. I think links should be either in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or why a particular AFF theory (such as realism or whatever) might be bad. Ideally, an alternative is able to solve these but if a convincing presumption push is made, I will evaluate the debate that way. What somewhat annoys me is these debates come down to who can better read blocks and not flow. I think K debaters get a lot of fire for this trend but I have seen it with policy debaters as well, so please try your best to continue to do line by line and debate off the flow. For answering the K, you're best tool will always be the 1AC so do your best to leverage it as much as possible.

Theory- 3 Condo is good, 4 there is some grey area and it'll come down to the flow, 5 or more I'm pretty AFF bias. But if it's a new AFF feel free to go 13 off. Most theories to me are a reason to reject the arg not the team. I have never understood the "perv con means we get to sever our reps" type arguments. To me, if you want to make this argument, the 2AC needs to prove specifically why the contradiction made it impossible to effectively answer the arguments, or the 1AR has to show specific forms of abuse, i.e. cross applying args from flows. With that being said I like consistency within flows. If you are answering a pess K, read authors that actually disagree with pess AND would likely agree with the 1AC. If you are running pess, don't read conflicting authors because I will notice and it will put you in a tough spot if the other team points it out.

K AFFs- Please talk about the topic but still go for it. It helps if you defend some kind of a method that solves your impacts but if that's not your thing please still explain either what the ballot does or why solvency isn't necessary. I dislike AFFs in which it is clear the entire purpose is to just beat topicality; these are both unstrategic for me and often make me more sympathetic to NEG solvency/framework/alt pushes.

K AFFs vs FW- framework debates are my favorite debates I've had, I'm always interested in the new ways people find at interpreting the topic, but at the same time, any team can lose or win on framework. Fairness and clash are impacts but need to be explained likely more than you are planning on. Adding on to this, I am cool with the impact turn approach but would much rather judge a round in which an AFF team defends a model of debate and the respective sides debate those issues out.

K vs K- AFF gets a perm, reject alts aren't very convincing unless the AFF isn't really doing anything either. And I will never vote on arguments that are tied to another person not being X identity group unless it is non-black people reading black scholarship.

Things I dislike: speaking past the timer, idk it's a weird pet peeve just be reasonable, and don't ramble on after the speech is over. Saying "debate becomes monologue" or "creates bad people" (insert Karl Rove joke); neither of the things are true and honestly so played out that they become cringe. I think this trend is finally over but saying "it's T not FW" has not and will never be a thing in my eyes. This list will likely grow, and I promise I do not plan on docking speaks for these things I just find it annoying.

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabinni and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Taj Robinson and Elon Wilson the work ethic of DML 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.

Extra Points: if you make me laugh or honestly look like you're having fun I'll give extra points. Throw some shade be petty cause that's honestly all debate is: throwing shade at 300 words per minute.

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

- be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc

- If you are against a novice win the round then use your remaining speech time to sing an Avril Lavigne song

- making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.

- Drip

- Reference something from Scooby-Doo

Do any of these things, and you will for sure get above a 28.5

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.

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

Styles of Debate -

Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.

K - Just make sure to explain it super well, as I think a well-done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true; I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.

Larp - Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.

Tricks -I read a lot of tricks but like most judges find them less interesting debates to judge. If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.

Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first and default competing interpretations.

Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.

*If you are reading my paradigm once debates have returned to in-person, please disregard the first paragraph.

COVID has made debate a bit more difficult for everyone. Not all of us have great internet. For that reason, I would rather you not spread and if you do please share your case (preferably through our medium of communication's file system but my email is jhernandez16@knights.ucf.edu). I see this primarily as an issue of courtesy.

Hi now that I've gotten that out of the way, my name is Javier Hernandez. I did LD for 3 years and I'm currently a senior studying history and political science at UCF. 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 sophomore 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

Cabot '19

Baylor '23 - 2x NDT Qualifier

TLDR: Do what you want to do and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. I almost never judge policy vs policy rounds and I never have these rounds when I debate. This means I have almost no predispositions in these debates but also means you shouldn't assume I know what you're talking about. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 7 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, I usually flow on paper and 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!

TOC Update:

I honestly don't care what you do or say, just please have fun and value the time you have at tournaments; and don't say messed up things. I've been a 2n most of my career but I've also been a 2a at times. I've read everything from baudrillard to disability and performance arguments on the aff to cap, spanos, necropolitics, semiocap, set col, and hostage taking on the neg (this isn't an exhaustive list). I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've went for fw since hs (one time). This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but it is to say I will have have a hard time being persuaded by "K affs set an impossible research burden" or "procedural fairness is the only impact in debate." More thoughts on fw below. 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.

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. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. 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. SSD/TVA's are probably defense and offense wins debates, defense is still good though. 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.

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 '24 (currently debating in policy)

2X NDT Qualifier (21,22)

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), Saratoga AG, Plano West MZ, Stanford Online(CA)

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

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Ritvik Mahendra

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

-Adam Tomasi

-Shree Awsare

Some Generic Stuff

1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know 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.

2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities.

3)No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly.I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story. The predispositions I have listed below are general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.

4) 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.

5) 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).

6) 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. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.

7) Tech>Truth

8) Prep stops when the speech doc is sent.

9) Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

10) If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

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

12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely have ZERO tolerance for any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes a value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.

13) 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 -- dont 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 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 from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him

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 (claims and warrants and impacts AND implications for the round that tell me how to evaluate the content) are 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 good for K v K, Policy v K, LD Phil debates, Policy v T 2nrs, K v T

i am ok-at-best for nuanced policy rounds

I am probably bad for pomo, psych, and tricks

debate thoughts

I think in round violence against your opponent or me can be a compelling ballot

Clipping ends the round

I'll evaluate arguments on the flow -- if it's not on my flow it might be my fault for missing it but it might also be your fault for spreading analytics that are super important -- if you think something should be in the RFD, it's good practice to make it clear.

I think explaining function of arguments and warrants as to why the function works in K affs is important in the 2ar

I like pastries and coffee cough cough

I think numbering arguments is good practice

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.

Impact scenarios with internal link explanations are good

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

Phil positions should have carded offense

I don't want to intervene but sometimes rounds are genuinely irresolvable and in these instances I don't feel awful about making intuitive judgements that are usually informed by strength of link and reasonability.

I'm a very expressive judge, my face will tell you a lot of things about how my flow is going

A little bit of clarifying flex prep is okay

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! :)

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, I'm a mom!

-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, I'll just sign the ballot for your opponent and start playing on my phone. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, remember I'm 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 everytime - cost benefit analysis pf style stuff.

-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

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. In case it's relevant, I went to HS in Florida. 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.

If you debate traditionally, skip down to the bottom and don't worry about the other stuff.

Prefs Shortcut

Phil/Theory - 1

LARP - 1/2 (used to be a 2, but most debate I've judged recently has been LARP so am more familiar with it)

K – 3 (but if you’re willing to explain the warrants and taglines you should be good)

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.

All defaults are super loose; the round is yours. I'm about as close to tabula rasa as you can get.

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. I have evaluated arguments in the past that effectively asked for the ballot because of the number of bids each debater had, how many years left they had to win the tournament, etc. I don't think any of them had any truth and thus no implication on the round, however, despite me evaluating them.

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.

I will not say that a layer is a wash by default - I will determine how the arguments are resolved even if it takes time. If it takes time simply because you both did not clarify or explain well, that's going to reflect in speaks. You can always tell me to treat a layer as a wash.

I do not default presume to a side.

I default to comparative worlds.

I default that layers can be weighed against each other if you don't give me a reason why they can't.

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. Also, 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. Ideally, there is some specification beyond just the violation to garner more specific offense.

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 and it is pointed out with weighing and implications.

If you read disclosure theory on someone whose school is not listed, please try to message them first. I'll vote on it, but I don't really want to and I will cap your speaks at 28.9. You can read it and win off something else instead and I'll give you higher speaks.

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. You need to do some work to get me to vote on these.

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

Most of the stuff from theory applies here. I hardly went for T, preferring to just go for theory. I personally don't hold either T or Theory as being more important, justifiable, useful, etc. Go for what you want.

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.

I default that new implications of arguments in later speeches allow new responses. I would prefer the debater making the new responses justify it, however. If I have to use this default I'll be disappointed.

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). I think it's fine for me to evaluate a specific portion of the debate earlier than the end of the round, as a form of filtering or as a weighing mechanism, but for me to stop the whole debate is difficult for me because I don't think I can evaluate the extension at that point.

No speaks theory. It's literally up to me to give based on how well I think you did in terms of strategy. If you read an argument for why you should get higher speaks, that time could've been better spent making real arguments - so I will end up dropping your speaks for that.

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. Flag what goes with what too, if you want to make interactions more clear (i.e. what responds to what).

Do more than just strength of link weighing. Please.

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. This might be a bit different because I won't say your claim is absolutely true just because you read a piece of evidence; if your evidence makes an analytical claim, I will treat it as such unless you tell me why I should not.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win the round.

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.

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 many times.

If you're clearly winning a round - i.e. a dropped 1AC disclosure shell - and you end your speeches early so we can have a discussion about the results of the round, I'll give you higher speaks. Do this at your own risk.

Clipping Cards

If there is an accusation of clipping cards, I will stop the debate and render a decision - if the accuser is correct, they will win the round; if the accuser is incorrect, they will lose the round. If I see it, I will automatically drop you. My definition of a clipped card is one that is misrepresenting the original evidence, such as cutting in the middle of a sentence to exclude the word "not" right before something, which also includes stating that you are reading highlighted/bolded sections of cards but you actually didn't and failed to mention it (i.e. if you're cutting a card early, say "cut the card at ...").

Of course, you could always read a shell instead and not stake the entire round on it - but it's entirely your call, I'm fine either way.

If the tournament has its own procedures, those supersede anything here if there are conflicts (applies beyond clipping cards as well).

Traditional/Lay Debate

I think traditional/lay debate is pretty cool. I will take into account how persuaded I am by your argument; no this does not mean I vote for whoever spoke the best, but the way in which you deliver an argument probably does matter in terms of persuasion. Keep the debate clean, crystallize/give clear voters, have a clear case, and be nice and respectful.

If someone reads anything technical against you - do your best to respond! I don't mandate anyone to be super technical in any round; do your best and make arguments to your ability. I have seen too many rounds where theory shells like disclosure go straight conceded and I end up voting on them.

Final Thoughts

Debate is a stressful activity. Take time to have fun and grow - you'll have graduated before you know it. In a few years, the exact rounds you won or lost won't matter, but being able to to ask insightful questions, read and understand complicated arguments quickly, as well as summarize and articulate yourself well are invaluable skills.

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. In college I read a USFG plan text affirmative and the DA + K on the negative. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas (read as truth > tech)

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

Policy/CX Debate

If your skimming here is what you are looking for :

Longer version:

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. I don't care how but I'm not wanting to vote on "no perms in a method v method debate".

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. I won't vote on the aff/neg shouldn't get to have arguments / contest the method.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds that I should have on ASPEC (which is a great arg...) 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

Background: I teach language arts and communication at a private after school academy that I own with my husband. Also, I am a licensed attorney in California with a background in litigation. I have done extensive performing and public speaking and am a member of SAG. I have not debated in LD but enjoy it tremendously.

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 am against 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. The opponent and the judges do not even have to be able to understand the spreading since they have it before them. Yet, we in the audience, suffer, feeling we are too "dumb" to get it and wondering what is going on. Spreading alienates the average audience because it cannot understand the debaters. The truth is, many of these spreaders have not even practiced being articulate at normal speeds, so speeding up muddy articulation becomes impossible to comprehend. I am glad that many states are increasingly not allowing spreading at tournaments.

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.

I have judged many public forum tournaments before, however I have not researched this topic. Thus, please thoroughly explain your case.

Please don't speak too fast and have an organized case. I need to be able to flow and write notes during your speech. Lastly, please be respectful of your opponents during cross ex.

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. Teaching and judging debate since 2017. 

thoughts on how I decide

> I live for when debaters take the presentation of their arguments seriously. I am good for speaker points if you: get off your blocks more, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/args snappy names, don't spread at top speed, give an overview, be organized, speak directly to me, etc.

> Read what you want, however you want, I don't care. I'll take any strategically applied argument into serious consideration for the ballot. However, don't rely on speed, quantity of arguments, or techy/blippy arguments. I'm good with speed but I am not the fastest flower so keeping up can be difficult for me, please take that into consideration.

> My decisions are usually based on a combo of meeting your burdens as aff/neg and controlling the big picture of the round. Most of the time this will come down to telling me how I should frame and weigh impacts. I need clash, comparisons, and warrants for that otherwise I'll decide myself what impacts matter the most. 

> General: perms, links, solvency, and impacts need to be clear about how we get from point A to point B, don't lose sight of your warrants. - Policy v K: read a TVA. I don't think K's are unfair but I may be convinced for a round. I'm not interested in you solving for the K, I’m persuaded by models that center policy/education for the purpose of doing good in the direction of the K. How can T/FW/debate be used for the intents and purposes of the K? the more you answer this question and leverage your response against inevitable impact turns, the better off you'll be.

> To make both our lives easier, have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening and straight up tell me why you win. for example, tell me what you're winning and what your opponent is losing, etc. i'm not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. I am very receptive to this.

Top-Level Opinions: Debate is a game that we play that informs how we think about real-life situations and scenarios. As the judge, I adapt to whatever you say and do in the Debate. Keep prep stealing and dead time to a minimum, showcase some strategic vision, make smart moves in cross-ex and answer your opponents arguments to earn above a 29. Conversely, you must absolutely fumble the bag to warrant under a 28.

My Knowledge Level: I'm studying to be a computer engineer, so my familiarity with Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity is extremely high, and I have interned at tech firms that specialize in both of those fields. Both my mom and my best friend work in the healthcare industry, and I started doing Policy Debate in 2018 right after the College Healthcare topic so I would say I'm pretty up to speed on biotechnology. I've debated on both Alliances and Arms topics in college and high school respectively, with the former topic including NATO specifically, so I know most of the ins and outs of debates centered around NATO in regards to the high school topic as well as IR debates more broadly. I'm also debating in college on a resolution that has basically just devolved into the AI topic, combined with a couple teams who recycle the Climate Change topic through Rights of Nature, or the occasional Manoomin aff; this is to say that your AI aff will certainly not elude me at this point. I also coach a large Detroit UDL team that engages in both policy and critical research, so I'm up to speed on what the current high school trends are, and I've judged at three national tournaments in varsity policy this year.

Rules: Don't say racial slurs. If you say oppression is actively good, I am unlikely to vote for you. That being said, I'll still vote on your cohesion aff if you win it. Just refrain from saying messed up cross-ex answers as much as possible and engage.

Speech-Specific Comments: The 1AR gets new arguments if the negative block blows up a position and contains new arguments that could not possibly have been ascertained from the original 1NC. The 2AC should not forego analytics, even though I read cards and would describe myself as a research-oriented judge. The 2NR and 2AR must do impact calculus and explain solvency for their impacts (or if the negative going for the status quo with a DA or Case Turns, flesh out uniqueness).

Other Activities: If I'm judging LD, keep the frivolous theory and independent voters to a minimum. Substantive debates will be rewarded with good speaker points and useful feedback. Maybe it's just my predisposition, but the asymmetry of speech times seem to indicate the activity has a massive neg side bias. Feel free to work that into either side's arguments. If I'm judging PF, you should make good use of cross-ex and try to make sure all your evidence is accessible to the other teams. Your evidentiary standards are a little foreign to me still, but I have no problem keeping up with what you're saying. I also find PF teams having trouble doing terminal impact work. If your opponents are operating under the same framework as you, then don't waste time winning your framing.

ABC's

AI: I think the best affirmatives about AI are ones that use it to access both healthcare and innovation impacts. The naval AI aff about submarines and military leadership is also pretty good against the critique if you can effectively win heg good. My main bias is probably that I think LAWs are bad and should be regulated rather than developed, i.e. "regulate LAWs" aff is probably a lot better in front of me than the "develop LAWs to beat Russia because LAWs inev" aff, because that one should lose to LAWs bad. Creative uses of AI are also encouraged, but I do think I'm in line with the consensus for the topic generics.

Biotech: I think the "ban gene editing" aff may be in the opposite direction of the resolution, but a neg team going for T against this aff would probably require definitions of multiple words and good precision (legal) and/or predictable limits debating that definitively wins them. Green biotech affs are certainly good against the critique but I think is actually susceptible to process and/or agent counterplans if you can win its deployment through NATO is not necessary, because I'm unsure what the NATO key and Security Cooperation key warrants are. The disease/vaccination biotech affs are fine, but again, I think the healthcare AI affs have all of these benefits plus more and are in general more strategic. Probably the best topic area to go for China impacts with.

Cybersecurity: The generic aff about redlines, hybrid wars and Article 5 activation is the way to go with this in front of me. I've seen some teams add in creative advantages stemming from international law internal links about space, those seem pretty good if you can beat the negative's impact defense and win the specificity of such scenarios. Otherwise, I'd just recommend going for the typical Russia Bad / Cohesion Good scenario. I'll say that against critiques, I think you should lean more in the heg good direction because I think lots of negative teams I've seen have developed arguments that implicate solvency and advantage claims of the aff more than just the regular securitization arguments by saying that US control of cyberspace is bad and more likely to escalate conflicts. I think these arguments operate as case turns if you don't win that US control of cyberspace is uniquely good.

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 Me

• 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 was a flex debater, typically went for more critical (K) arguments, and am happy to evaluate policy 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 be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, 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, but these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to use my own 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. Be creative.

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.

Hi, My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical and business. I've been judging debate for almost 3 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

—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, incoming @ Berkeley Law '26. This is my 4th year judging.

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

Add me to the email chain: write2zaid@gmail.com

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 embarassing 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

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.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

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 and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. I now study computer science and economics co 2023.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vvennela@ucdavis.edu. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs.

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 embarassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

My paradigm is split into three: for the Tournament of Champions in Lexington KY, for all other tournaments, and aMUST READ GENERAL PARADIGM at the bottom.

For THE TOC:

My paradigm is exclusively directed towards limiting the insane prep gap between big schools and small schools - but for the TOC it doesn't really matter. Tech over truth. Still do explain everything you say and mean. I'm familiar with some of the common Ks on the TOC circuit in California but you need to explain literally everything to me. Assume that I am a computer program in the sense that you need to explain everything to me and I'll just simply output a decision on the argument.

I would really prefer the AFF to stay topical.

However, I'm still really uncomfortable with RVIs in most cases because I simply am not familiar with it on a higher level. So essentially, theory should only happen when there is real abuse in the round where this alleged abuse is the #1 voter in the round. Debaters should stake the round on this.

No trix.

I still would prefer substance debate and that is what I am most familiar with judging.

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 also am tech > truth but implicit link chains and poor warrants make my job much harder - it would be in your best interest to thus frame impacts as truthful as possible. It's a really hard buy for me to believe that overfishing in subsaharan Africa will need to inter-galactic war. But, it's a smarter argument and less work for me to understand that water wars in Africa will lead to global starvation and that will lead to war.

I would prefer if post-rounding is done via text messages/emails because I hate delaying tournaments and no one is trying to stay until 1 am. If I don't understand an argument, I will straight up tell you via RFD that I didn't understand it.

For Every Other Tournament:

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 I cannot buy egregiously unreasonable arguments. Good warrants and link chains are key to convincing me that your arguments are indeed reasonable.

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). Norms are fake and breaking norms in most cases is not abuse. I'll go by what is in the explicit CHSSA/NSDA rules. Besides, how do you expect a debater to know about these norms at their first invitational?

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific stuff. Like I said earlier, you have to do a lot of work to convince me in these shells that there was abuse so you're better off not going down that route. Not a big fan of disclosure either. I think performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate. You win not by utilizing ridiculous strategies but by genuinely convincing me of your argument. You're better off not even going down this route. Ks are fine, just explain your author and phil thoroughly. You can't expect me to know your author and what your K is.

Don't spread. That would be ideal.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

In general, regardless of tournament:

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. I also like how traditional debaters debate philosophy as well. Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate.

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.

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. Provide warranting 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.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative. I'll give you +1 speaker points if you use a computer science concept in an analogy.

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 high school 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.