Judge Paradigm for NAUDL- Sandy Amos

I have moderate experience in debate judging. Most of my Rounds have been novice and JV rounds at BAUDL Tournaments.

I do not like spreading. If I can’t understand what you saying I can’t evaluate your arguments. I like arguments that are focused on the substance of the case. I do not find Topicality or Framework to be particularly effective. There should be considerable clash on the merits of the arguments that are presented. I do appreciate personal connections to the topics being debated. I believe that when an argument is connected to your personal experience it is more effective. Please provide your files before the debate as I like to follow along with the text as I flow.

I consider Performance Debate techniques to be a valid and creative method of debate and I am not particularly interested in argument on the format of debate. I value originality and intellectual discourse as the basis for my ballot decisions.

My name is Val and I would say I have a lot of debate experience. I did policy debate for 1 year in middle school and 4 years in high school. I was a part of the Bay Area Urban Debate League (BAUDL) and went to most national tournaments. I also went to debate camp all four years I was in high school . I was a flex debater so I ran both policy and kritik/performance arguments. I do not have a preference for arguments. I will vote on who did the better debating regardless of what arguments are presented. I try to leave my personal preferences outside of the round.

However, below I've left my preferences/opinions on certain arguments just in case any team is interested in seeing what my thoughts are.

Topicality/Framework:

I ran topicality/framework a lot in high school, it was one of my favorite arguments to run on the negative against K/performance affs. I think that if a team chooses to run this argument or go for it in a debate round it's important to really stress the significance of topicality/framework. If you can convince me that your voters are important in regards to the round and in general debate, I'll vote neg. However, personally I don't believe that T/framework is a voter, it's hard for me to be convinced it is.

K Affs/Performance Affs:

My favorite. I love judging rounds that have K affs or performance affs. The only thing is that you'd have to really break down what solvency looks like in regards to the aff. You'll win me easily on the impacts of the K but you'll have to do the work on proving what solvency looks like for the aff and what spill over looks like.

K's on Neg:

This is also one of my favorite arguments on the neg. I'll usually vote on the K if and only when links are strong and there's a good alternative to the K. As in, you can explain what the world of the alternative looks like and how the permutation fails on the aff's end. I'd also appreciate a good impact calculus as well.

Disads/CP's:

I'm familiar with disads/counterplans but I did not run them as much in high school. Just make sure that you're clear on what the links are and how the counterplan is mutually exclusive in regards to the aff. Not a huge fan of the politics disad, however, if you explain it well and there's clash I could vote for it.

I am an experienced coach and judge of about 10 years but have no experience actually debating myself. As a person who comes to debate as an educator first, I am predisposed to argumentation that open spaces for youth to explore real ideas and their relationships to them. This translates into a few concrete implications for preferences:

1. I don't like spreading, which is not to say I can't deal with moderately fast talking, but the idea of fitting in as many arguments as possible to get your opponent to drop something, to me, is not the point of debate.

2. I don't like debates about the definitions of words in a resolution, so if you are going to run topicality on the neg, it better be good. As long as the aff does a minimally competent job answering T, I'm not voting for it. In the age of electronic disclosure and Open Ev, I'm not into the sob stories about fairness and being unable to prep. However, theory debates about why resolutions and being topical are good/not good for debate I think are a lot more worthwhile.

3. I like kritiks and critical affs, but make sure you understand what you are talking about and didn't just download a file that you think has a cool title. Make it your own if you are going to run it, otherwise we end up with bad debates where two sides don't understand each other.

4. I think that it is important that we bring our whole selves into the debate space and value argumentation that actually connects to debater's identities and experiences. Along with that, I will hold everyone to a high standard of mutual respect for each other's backgrounds and perspectives.

All that being said, I'm open to any style and will listen to any argument. Even though I may not like certain types of arguments, I will vote based on what I hear in the round. I expect debaters to do the work for me of sorting through the flow and telling me why they won. Unless something is blatantly sexist/racist/homophobic/violent, I'm not voting against it unless I'm told to vote against it. Good impact calculus goes a really long way for me!

I am the type of judge that will be giving feedback based on what I was taught about Public Speaking, I also value the historical points of view of the topic. For example, I am a History major and Spanish Teacher and will be looking for facts and dates and also examples of historical past history. I also will be looking for specific information that will be adheareing to the actual topic this year of Artificial Intelligence. The aff I will be looking for a continuance of the plan and also will be looking for specific details and dates and facts to past history. The Neg I will be looking for the best counter argument possible with leads into K's and also different topics to further enhance their argument against the plan. I want to see Artificial Intelligence in the forefront of where the world is going and also using past history to further establish how and why Artificial Intelligence can be a detriment to the plan.

I also believe that the inflection and the voice of the team and the Cross x questions I will also take into consideration in my judgement of the rounds that I will be judging for. I am excited to be judging on a National Debate scale and this will be very meaningful for me to bring back to my school and learn how to judge rounds as a judge for BAUDL as well.

Lastly, I would prefer to be able to judge the continuation of the argument rather than the speed of the debate. I feel that if I can understand what the team is saying and with their inflection and the best arguments come from their evidence rather than from the speed of the debate. I want to understand what someone is saying and not so concerned about how fast that they can speak. I come from a Public Speaking background with FFA and that the best argument and ability to connect the dots with their evidence is key rather than how fast they get facts out.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

4 years of Policy and LD at Dougherty Valley High School (2016-2020).

Please add me to the email chain: anish.maram@berkeley.edu

General

- Tech over Truth (usually)

- Speed is fine; I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. If your opponent asks that you do not spread, it's up to you, but it won't affect the ballot or speaks (barring unique circumstances).

- No racism, sexism, misgendering, etc.

- Any default stances I have on debate issues themselves are malleable. All preferences are superseded by what actually happens in the round

- Evidence comparison and weighing are critical.

- Pointing out power-tagged evidence will generally be more persuasive than reading an extra card

- I won't vote on an argument I don't understand

- Unwarranted blips don't need to be responded to. I don't mean bad warrants, but rather the actual absence of any warrant attached to the claim.

Case, DA, CP

*These are the arguments I'm most familiar with and effectively always went for.*

- I will probably not vote on 1 condo. Anything more and it depends.

- I'm receptive to all manner of counterplans. If the counterplan seems sketchy, defending a perm that takes specific liberties to restore competition will be more persuasive than generic "x CPs bad" shells.

- Conditional planks are conditional advocacies

- Judge kicking the CP needs a warrant

- I like sufficiency framing

Theory

*I have a medium threshold on theory and T, so the abuse story needs to be there.*

- I default to competing interpretations such that theory is a non-issue if the offending debater meets the interpretation, has offense on the interpretation, or has offense that outweighs on a counter-interpretation; if you want me to evaluate under reasonability tell me what that means

- I like turns on standards

- I don't like frivolous theory.

- Metatheory becomes somewhat truer as the quantity of shells increases and significantly truer as their organization decreases

- I'm neutral on RVIs and default to no RVIs

- Spikes in the 1AC are fine, but tricks are not ideal

- I default to NIBs being bad

- I have no preference for fairness v education as voters; magnitude probably matters

Topicality

- I'm less receptive to an RVI on T than on theory

- Reasonability is stronger on T than on theory. That being said, I think the best T arguments are probably more convincing than the best theory arguments when applicable

- Apart from those two, same as theory

Kritiks

*I'm familiar with most of the literature bases, but nuances need clear explanations. I did not go for these arguments as frequently as others.*

------- General

- Specific links are infinitely better than generic ones.

- Don't obscure the link story with a swarm of buzzwords. When the debate starts, I am equally as ignorant about U.S. foreign policy as I am about pomo.

- I think role of the ballot arguments are rarely read in a persuasive way, and so are most root cause claims or claims that a lit base is epistemically flawed. This has less to do with their veracity and more to do with begging the question. 1 card from a tertiary source is likely not going to get me to throw out the 1AC, so please expound.

- Specific K prior arguments can be persuasive

- Tricks like floating PIKs are ok, provided that you can theoretically defend them

- If the K operates on multiple layers that can access the ballot, the scaffolding should be apparent in the 1NC.

- Articulation of the alt in the 1NC and CX should not be vaguer than later in the debate. If the 2NR is much more lucid, it's a new argument.

------- Performances/ K Affs

- Please make the advocacy of the aff/performance clear

- TVAs can be compelling, so you should tell me why the aff is key when not in the direction of the resolution

- Framework either needs an impact that outweighs the performative advantage or to place sufficient defense on the advantage to make the impacts of framework outweigh.

Philosophy/ Ethical Framing

- I default to epistemic modesty and see phil as an impact magnifier rather than the sole determinant of what impacts matter; if you want the NC to be a pure impact filter I need more justification than it being better/truer

- Pairing NCs with defense and risk assessment makes them much stronger

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.