email: cbhatt@udel.edu

I have done mostly CX debate in high school (graduated 2019), so I am fairly familiar with Ks. I have also done LD (and a little PF) and I have seen both progressive and traditional styles of LD so I am good with both.

You can spread, but make sure to signpost/slow down a little for tags.

PCFL quals William Tennent - this is my first time judging in this school year so unfortunately I have not really seen the favored args and meta for this year in terms of policy debate. But I am well experienced in this format so it should be fine.

Be respectful to each other, but also have fun! Good luck.

Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24

About Me

I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.

3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.

LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com

MC

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Email: louispd13@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him/his

Hello! I am a junior at Temple University majoring in Political Science and Criminal Justice. I graduated from La Salle College High School in 2021; there I competed in many events but my main two were LD Debate and Extemp.

I was mainly a traditional debater in high school, but I'm okay with progressive/spreading as long as you send me your case before.

I'm a big fan of voters in later speeches so I can best weigh the round.

Respect your opponent(s) and good luck!

Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.

General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.

Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.

Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.

Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.

Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.

Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.

Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.

K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.

Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:

1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

email: unionvillekl@gmail.com - please put me on the email chain

update: this paradigm is from when i judged policy pre-pandemic, general opinions remain the same

overview

i was a 2a in high school and read mostly soft-left affs focusing on violence against women/gender minorities. that being said, please do whatever you do best and can explain well.

tech>truth and dropped arguments are true, but please explain why these arguments matter, especially for theory and other blippy arguments

ev spin/contextualization > ev quality, quantity, and recency in a vacuum – but this isn’t an excuse to read bad evidence

have fun and be respectful of everyone in the room. if there’s anything i can do to make debate more accessible to you, please let me know. i won’t vote for anything blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/etc. or anything approaching death good.

specific preferences

cp/da

i like good politics scenarios – if your da is innovative, i’ll be impressed. i’m fine with generics, but you should have a specific link or contextualize your link to the aff.

slow down on cp texts and explain multiple planks in the block. solvency advocates are necessary and even better if they come from the aff’s authors. i won’t kick the cp for you. aff – explain why i shouldn’t vote on sufficiency framing and the specific solvency deficits to the cp.

t

i really like good t debates and i think that many affs aren’t topical. i would prefer a case list and tva in the block if you’re going for t.

competing interps > reasonability

t debates are about your vision of the topic, not in-round abuse.

k/fw

i’m familiar with k’s from debating them. i have no ideological preferences but prefer jargon/theory to be well-explained. i have a high standard for 2ac against one off k and think the best 2acs use fewer cards.

i want to vote for a stable alternative whose solvency is uncontested or well-defended.

affs should get to weigh the aff and role of the ballot debates are often an excuse to not explain your warrants. i think fw against a 1 off k debate can make or break the aff.

k affs – these should be in the direction of the resolution, but i don’t think that the neg should have to debate against your personal experiences or that debate is a survival strategy. i want to know what voting for your advocacy does.

fw/t-usfg – i think debate is a game and procedural fairness is an independent impact. i think tva’s are the most strategic way to win t.

theory. that being said, if you can prove procedural fairness is a bad model, go for it.

i think condo is good. i probably won’t vote on theory but can be convinced otherwise. i don’t think many cps are abusive enough to drop the team, but can be persuaded on drop the argument.

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

I am an experienced LD judge and former coach. By all measure, I am a traditional judge. I want to see clearly outlined value structure and clash between opposing values. I expect you to link your impacts to your warrants. Crystalize your voters and remember; it is your responsibility to show the judge why you have won the round. I believe flow tech is vital. It is the responsibility of the debater to extend dropped arguments not the judges'. I have no issue with speed. I will vote on any argument as long it functions within the structure of Lincoln Douglas Debate. Also, never forget this is a public speaking event; if you are speaking you are standing.

Strath Haven '23

Georgetown '28

LD (14 career bids; TOC quarters 2x; won a few tournaments + RRs), dabbled in CX

PFI (2/2024) Update - Topic: I'm relatively out of debate/not cutting prep. While I have (some) general knowledge about the Middle East and follow the news pretty closely, I don't know the topic meta, which means . . . I need clear case lists for T debates (which you should already do! see the T section) and you should explain non-intuitive acronyms (yes, I know what ISIS stands for).

PFI (2/2024) Update - Paradigmatic: This paradigm got quite long, you don't need to read through everything. I like policy debates, I can adjudicate K/T debates, and loathe trix/friv theory. I'll always vote on the flow, even if that means voting for an argument I don't like, so please don't make me do that. (Caveat: argument = claim warrant impact, which means "condo is a voting issue for strat skew" = 0 weight the same way "zeno's paradox means we can never reach an end point so vote for me" = 0 weight)

https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library

Yes, I want to be on the email chain! amanaker17@gmail.com

Speechdrop heg, but email is fine too.

Absent an email chain, don't be a sad panda, use an SDI flash drive!

I probably hold similar views to Jeffrey Kahn, Gabe Morbeck, Ben Morbeck, and Eli Manaker. I share a brain with Iris Chen and there is a 99% chance we vote the same way in every round. I am a marginally more fascist Elmer Yang, less-dead inside Tej Gedela, the antithesis of my family members (Sophia Tian/Shrey Raju), and strive to judge like Sam McLoughlin.

I read almost exclusively policy until the end of my senior year, so my ideal 2NR is probably DA+CP or impact turns, but I went for the K a decent amount (shoutout to the clown AFF), so I'm comfortable in most non-pomo kritik debates.

Tech > truth

You do you, debate is a game, let's all have fun and make this a nice, non-offensive, non-toxic place, etc.

I do not flow author names.

I'm very expressive, but smiles tend to indicate amusement rather than agreement with your argument.

Concessions do not need temperature! Arguments are not "cold conceded" or "hot dropped."

I'm probably less dogmatic than this paradigm makes me seem. Except for tricks. Grow up and read a real argument.

LD:

Tl;dr: pref me for policy, meh for K, strike for anything else.

***Most of this paradigm is geared towards circuit debate, if you're a novice, don't worry about it.

I don't flow author names. Yes, you can insert re-highlightings. I care more about evidence than most judges and do not think reading evidence is intervention -- arguments have as much weight as the warranting they get, which means that reading the words you said from a piece of evidence determines whether you have made an argument, or just written a tag-line.

Policy:

Impact turns are fun! If the 1NC is 7 minutes of impact turns (not spark/wipeout), you will enjoy your speaks.

I am a card carrying, Kool-aid drinking member of the "politics is sick bro" club. I love international relations and anything related to foreign policy. This means I am a fantastic judge for voting on "case/DA has as close to zero risk of impact as is possible in debate" (zero-risk =/= a thing) because most arguments in debate are so mind-bogglingly stupid they should lose to CX + smart analytics.

Cheaty counterplans are fun, but I'll be sympathetic to cheaty perms. I adore counterplan competition debates. Like, ADORE. (2/2024 Note: probably adore them less now cuz I haven't seriously thought about how to write perm texts in almost a year.)

Turns case is not offense, it is comparative impact calc and/or complicates AFF solvency.

"I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong." -- Gabe Morbeck.

Look, honestly, if you have me in the back for something that's not a policy round, I'm going to want to vote for whoever was making policy arguments. I'll always vote on the flow (provided you're making complete arguments, so not trix), so as long as you don't drop a bunch of things, and you give me a way to justify a policy ballot, I'll probably vote on it.

Kritiks:

I'm not a "no plan, no ballot" person, but I'm also not not a "no plan, no ballot" person. Fairness is an impact. Impact turns vs K AFFs = <333333.

K vs policy AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

topical K AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

non-topical K AFF: will vote on the flow, but persuaded by T

K vs phil: how did you get me in the back . . . I will be confused . . .

AFFs should probably get to weigh case versus the K. Links are often more important than arbitrary, impact-justified frameworks. Unless your opponent has specified it makes them uncomfortable, I don't think a debater's identity influences argument choice. Pomo is nonsense, albeit fashionable. Condo probably justifies perf cons (e.g. security K + ME War DA), but the more egregious (multiple Ks) the abuse, the more likely I am to vote on condo.

I am quite comfortable not voting on arguments I didn't get or don't understand (especially when it comes to dense phil/pomo, it doesn't matter if the argument is dropped if I can't understand it). If I can't explain your argument back to the other team, I'm not voting for it.

Theory:

Slow on theory and analytics, please. I cannot stress enough that I would prefer slow + efficient >>>> speed, because I just won't be able to flow a million blips.

"Independent voting issues" are rarely voting issues. Infinite condo is good, but I am willing to listen to a condo 2AR (I will just be pre-disposed against it). RVIs make me sad. The 1AR gets theory, but reasonability and/or RANT are most likely sufficient to answer it. The only kind of spec I like is "spec your favorite multi-purpose fighter jet" (answer: F-35).

You should disclose open source. Period. I'll still evaluate the flow, but will err heavily towards os theory. Disclosure interps beyond that (cites, round reports, etc.) are significantly less appealing (e.g. if you're reading tournament name theory, the chance I vote on it is minimal).

Topicality:

I would prefer a DA+CP strategy, but I actually really like topicality vs policy AFFs (actual topicality, e.g. T-Appropriation on the JF22 LD topic). Please give case lists at the top. I'm typically unpersuaded by LD silliness that says semantics is completely divorced from pragmatics -- you need a definition to win a T debate, but you also need offense and reasons why that definition should be preferred.

Extremely unlikely to vote on Nebel-T/plans bad; chances are they violated another T shell --- read that! (Side note: please call it T-[topic word] instead of T-Nebel . . . what is this, T-Tassof again?) Far less likely to vote on the "grammar DA"/Niemi, and it is absolutely not an RVI.

Trix:

Here is what will happen if you read trix: I will sleep/do some homework and then vote for whoever tried to have an actual debate.

Phil:

I actually really enjoy pure philosophy (e.g. Sophia-style phil (Prospect ST)), but you should not be preffing me for it if you read trix-y phil/super complicated stuff because I won't make a good decision. If you end up with me in the back, explain your theory the way Oscar explains what a surplus is to Michael (for uncultured people who haven't seen The Office: explain like I'm 5).

Examples --> Ava understands --> W + good speaks.

Epistemic modesty makes exactly zero sense --- how do you combine weighing deontic and consequentialist impacts? Collapsing to calc indicts will make my eyebrows go like this: v

Trad/What If I Hit a Novice And Don't Want to Make Them Sad But Also Want to Win???:

You can be circuit, but be nice and make the round educational (e.g. don't read 10-off, spread at 40% speed). I won't dock your speaks if you sit down early.

Note for PFI: I did lay-debate in high school, and while I personally enjoyed circuit LD more, I'm comfortable evaluating these rounds. I will always judge by the flow, but that doesn't mean you need to change your strategy for me.

PF:

I'll probably be able to evaluate rounds fine, but don't know event specific norms. Please read actual evidence(why do PFers not cut cards properly??? Your cards should be cut! They should be disclosed on the PF wiki (https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/)! They should be sent out in a speech doc!). The faster you go and more evidence you read the happier I'll be, but do not do "progressive" PF. There is an event for that. It is called policy. Stop ruining PF.

Speaks:

CXes where you are knowledgeable and funny = higher speaks.

***I WILL NOT BE ADDING SPEAKS FOR ANY OF THE NOTES BELOW -- the only reason I'm not deleting them is because I am sentimental and they bring me happiness; plus, I remember being a smol freshman who read paradigms in her free time cuz she wanted to learn everything about debate, so for anyone else who needed to get a life as much as I did, here are some funnies:

-.1 per each time you say "LARP" instead of policy. In the wise words of my wife: "LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention???" --- Sophia Tian

-.1 per every 10 seconds spent reading an underview

-.1 every time you add temperature to concessions. It's annoying and inefficient.

+.5 if you answer Peters 04 with Byman 10

+.1 if you say "heehoo" correctly

+.5 if you say "heehoo" in front of Elmer (recordings of reaction, please!)

+.1 for a good SNL reference or HS impact quote. (I have an embarrassingly encyclopedic knowledge of both). Remind me before RfD or I'll forget.

+.1 if you're "free to be me." I will laugh hysterically. Please ensure I have not passed out from lack of oxygen. Let me know before RfD.

+.1 if you use Jeff Winger's explanation for Lacan. Flag it before the RfD.

+.1 if you guess who wrote the joke paradigm.

---- OLD (JOKE) PARADIGM ----

Introduction

Hi! I’m Ava Manaker (aah-vaah man-acre). Call me Mrs. Wikipedia or "The Cub" else I give you an L0. No, I do not want to be on the email chain but if you really want me to be and lose a speak, here is my email: amanaker17[at]gmail[dot]com.

Overview

I am a debater at Strath Haven High School, but I secretly wish I went to Mission San Jose High. As a debater, I primarily read Kant+trix, but I’m very tab. Here is my preference of argumentation to judge (in terms of comfortability and desire):

1--Trix/Friv Theory

2--Phil/High Theory Ks

3--Legit T/Theory/IdPol Ks

Strike--Larp

PS: If you tell me your favorite song by Troye Sivan or Why Don't We, I'll give you an extra speak.

Larp

I hate it! I hate it with all my heart! The only larp argument I like is spark, I won’t vote on anything. Is this intervention? Yes. Do I care? No. Oh also, weighing is overrated!

Kritiks

I only like high theory. If you read identity politics, I will vote for the other side on presumption. Weighing case and perms are not persuasive--when responding to Ks, people should only make link or impact turns.

Phil

Love it! I am most versed in Kant and virtue ethics. Not persuaded by util. Please explain the syllogism clearly.

Theory

I love friv shells - it makes debate entertaining. A good 2nr/2ar on a frivolous shell gets you a W30. I’m willing to vote on actual shells, but they’re soooo boring like c'mon people get creative. Default drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps. Don’t make me default stuff or you’re forcing me to intervene, and that’s on you.

Tricks

YASSSS!! My favorites are logcon and external world skep, but I’m just as willing to vote on the resolved a priori and evaluate the debate after the 1ac. Just remember, I don’t flow off the doc, but for tricks I’ll make the exception so I can follow along.

Speaks

Unlike many judges, my range is a 0-30. You start at a 25. If you’re good, I go up by increments of 1. If you’re bad, you get an L0.

If you guess who wrote this paradigm (correctly), I'll give you plus .1.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

Gabriel Morbeck

Strath Haven High School (PA) - 2014 to 2016

Emory University - 2016 to 2020

gsmorbeck28@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant coach at Emory and a part-time coach at Woodward Academy.

Please add me to the email chain!

If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:

1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.

2. I think about debates through an offense/defense lens more than most judges. Unwilling to vote on presumption in almost every situation.

3. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong.

4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. If you go for something that the other team has hardly covered or dropped, but you have barely spent any time developing it, I can't guarantee I'll vote on it.

5. Strong neg bias on condo. Generally fine with 2NC counterplans, modifying/kicking planks, etc. I do think that neg teams need to say judge kick in the 2NR for me to consider it. I don't find most other counterplan theory arguments very compelling. You're much better off winning competition arguments than saying that a whole category of counterplan doesn't belong in the debate.

6. I'm not very good at evaluating T debates against policy affs. Go for it at your own risk.

7. I love politics DAs.

8. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!

LD paradigm

I debated policy for 6 years so debates that look closest to policy debates are what I probably want to see. I want to see debates about substance. Plans and counterplans are great, critiques too. Please do impact calc--at least the top 30 seconds of the final rebuttals should be devoted to it.

I care about evidence. I'd rather see you read more cards to build your arguments (throughout every speech except the 2AR) than rely on spin.

I'm meh for theory. From my understanding there is generally a lower threshold for theory args in LD than in policy, so if your are making impassioned appeals to fairness I probably do not feel as cheated as you do.

In K debates--do link debating. I care more about that than framework/role of the ballot args. The strength of the link affects how I view every other arg in the debate.

Values stuff--I generally lean towards util/consequentalism when thinking about debates.

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

email: tyler.wood973@gmail.com

prefs:

I feel comfortable judging: Policy, Trad, T, neolib/cap, MM, Sec, set col, theory

I feel not comfortable judging: PoMo, pess, phil, most non-t affs, 

I hate judging: trix, friv theory

also, I am no longer involved in argument formation or prepping debaters, I have very little background info on the current topic

you must send: interps / plan texts / standards (in a theory shell) / alt text / etc...

it would be nice for everyone if you sent: prewritten analytics / summary of standards (or the whole text) / overviews

I think it's also worth mentioning that I do not like disclosure arguments. I do not think the judge should have jurisdiction to vote on things that happen outside the round, as this is an infinite burden. Of course I can be persuaded otherwise

Bronx: I've started to realize that despite me indicating I'm not involved in prep, debaters continue to read 1ac arguments that require extensive background knowledge and research on contemporary global events, without explanation in the 1ac. I will no longer go on a wikipedia binge to attempt to understand the arguments you are making, I'll simply not evaluate them if the 1ac evidence is insufficient to explain the concept.

If you only have 30 seconds

Policy----X----------------------------------------K

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

Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--------------X----------------Conditionality bad

States CP good---------------------------X-------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------------------X-------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most-----X---------------------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die---------------X--------------------------No risk

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

Judge kick good-------X----------------Judge kick bad

3 minutes of theory preempts-----------------------X-a short U/V seems fine

Quick thoughts

Hi, I'm Tyler, I debated for La Salle College in PA for 3 years and am a second year out. When I debated I was mostly a disclosure/T/Plan debater. I ran some Kritiks, like cap, neolib, and a brief stint in MM and security, but not much else. My favorite 1a was 1-2 advantages, plan, framing, short UV. My favorite 1n was t/theory, 2 da, 1-2 cp, case. 

For online tournaments:

please don't go top speed. I haven't judged circuit tournaments recently, and I have a really difficult time understanding things over zoom. It's much easier if you start slower and work up to 200-250 (please nothing over that). I'll say clear 2-3 times but after that I'll flow what I can hear and won't look at the doc.

Emory '23 | Strath Haven '19 | 2A/1N

tech > truth

debated two years in college/qualled to TOC in policy my senior year/know nothing about the water topic

please put me on the email chain: lynnea(dot)zhang@gmail(dot)com

Top Level

i go by the flow which presupposes any ideological preferences i have; if you win the flow, i will vote for you.

if i look grouchy, you're doing something wrong.

do ev comparison.

Counterplans

i will be very very sad if i have to flow your 24 point at: perm do the counterplan block

won't judge kick unless i am told to

Kritiks

if you're running one, your burden is still to disprove the aff. please debate the case. i am probably not familiar with your theory, but have few ideological preferences when it comes to what your scholarship is as long as it is well explained.

i really really do not care that fiat isn't real, i'm going to weigh the aff

K Affs

do your thing. i really enjoy well-developed case debate, k aff or otherwise. the best k affs capably explain their method to resolve a problem. impact turns vs k affs are great.

K Affs vs T

i think debate is a game and the only impact that my ballot can really resolve is procedural fairness. however, if you can prove why that that's a bad or violent model, you've leveled the playing field.

counter define words in the resolution.

procedural fairness >>> truth-testing/refinement > topic education > deliberation > any other impact

Theory

condo is probably pretty good and the only violation i'd be willing to vote on

i have a high threshold for voting issues here. my team routinely ran very abusive counterplans, so there's no alarm that really goes off in my head

Topicality

i like t debates. please explain the violation clearly and compare counter-interps.

untopical affs should go for reasonability and literature checks limits/potential abuse. i find the arg that ground shapes limits on certain resolutions very persuasive in determining an impact to something like ground loss or limits explosion.

LD

i don't think there is much delineation between my philosophy for LD and Policy. i will give more weight to theory because i recognize that it is apart of LD norms, except for rvis. rvis are silly.