ASU 2021 update

This is my first online circuit tournament. I do not have topic knowledge.

Pronouns: They/them

Please do not pref me if you read tricks. I will probably evaluate the round poorly and then we will both be sad.

I did policy debate (not very well) in high school. I did not debate in college. I have mostly judged LD. I judge more locals than circuit.

>

Things before the debate

Blatant discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression good, etc.) will get you voted down and reported to tab.

Give content warnings.

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

>

Pet peeves

Any variation of "I'd like to thank my opponents and the judge for being here today and making this debate possible. Now moving on to my contentions..." – The phrase "off-time roadmap" – Knocking on things during the round – Quantum mysticism – The phrases "firm affirmation/negation" – Saying "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now"

>

Judge things

eDebate - put the order in the chat please. I think it makes it easier for everyone. I would prefer it if your video is on, but you do you.

I try my best to be tech > truth.

Speed: on circuit I'm like a 4/10, Oregon like a 7/10 to a 8/10. Please slow down on tags and analytics. Please be slower when debating online.

Unwarranted arguments are not arguments.

I'll probably flow cx.

The onus is on you not to misrepresent your evidence, not on your opponent(s) to catch you cheating.

I am slow at typing my rfd. It's not you, it's me.

>

Thoughts on Specific Arguments

Case: For the aff: the debate starts in the 1AC, not the 1NC. You wrote the aff for a reason: articulate it, extend it, weigh it against (for example) t-framework. Use it in later speeches! For the neg: be sure not to just put defense on the aff. Solvency deficits are probably only meaningful when paired with offense on the same layer. Good case debate rewarding for both me and you.

Disadvantages/Counterplans: Yes. These are what I'm most comfortable judging. Debates on disads is usually the weakest on the link level. Please read complete counterplans with a solvency advocate at the very least. I am starting to wonder about how much leeway I should give "perm do both, perm do the aff, perm do the cp" one-liners.

Kritiks: I am worse for them than I would like to be. I probably don't know your literature base. Please over-explain how the links outweigh the perm.

Phil: Nothing against it. I probably don't know your literature base. I need you to articulate what offense looks like in these framings.

Topicality: T is good. For extra and effects T all you really have to say is "drop the non-t offense" and then do the line by line. Otherwise, please explain how your interp is necessary for good debates. Please put standards in the 1nc and not just in the block.

Theory: My default is to drop the argument unless articulated otherwise. I think frivolous theory arguments are probably bad. Please slow down on your underviews/spikes.

Framework: Is how you frame your work. Love to see it.

>

If you have any questions about anything feel free to ask/email me. I look forward to your debates!

I award points off of quality; the way you speak, how you conduct yourself, the strength in your arguments, clarity, and organization. Do not spread.

Throughout the round I will be keeping notes, but if there is something you would particularly like me to take more notice to then communicate that during the round.

I will leave it up to you and your opponent to correct and bring up any rule violations you notice, unless I find it necessary to step in. I will be sure to note them down so be sure to not violate the rules.

If a topicality argument is brought up I will listen to and consider it, but it will not be a sole reason for decision.

Evidence is of importance to me, I expect each debater to be prepared with correct and sufficient evidence. If you show me that your evidence is better than your opponents I will hold great value to that.

I am more likely to vote for you if you show me your ability to debate with quality and provide strong arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you!

Overall I want you to be able to leave the debate with more knowledge and practice. Be kind and learn!

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

I'm an assistant debate coach and competed in debate in all 4 years of high school, so I can keep up with complex arguments, as long as you bring them back to real world implications & keep your speeches organized.

A winning team will tell me why their side/case makes the world a better place. I like when teams include weighing mechanisms in their cases, and when they prove why theirs is a more important weighing mechanism and/or how they win on both their weighing mechanism & their opponent's.

I'm not a huge fan of off-time roadmaps - all I need is a basic structure of your speech, and I prefer if you give that within your time. I try not to be incredibly picky about small things, but using politically correct & respectful terms is very important to me.

Background:
I debated on the Oregon circuit in LD and Parli. I am an open-minded judge and enjoy any type of argument.

Specifics:

- I'll mainly vote on the explicit voting arguments you make.
- Extend dropped arguments through to voters if you want me to vote on them!
- I'm alright with speed but will inevitably miss stuff if you get too fast! Absolutely make sure to slow down on tags.

I am a parent with 2+ years of experience judging both individual and debate events.

* Spreading: I try to flow all contentions but may miss some in cases of high speed delivery. I favor well developed arguments over trying to overwhelm other side with sheer numbers.

* Theory: Please explain arguments without relying solely on jargon, but if you over-argue your points, I'll assume that you have nothing better to say.

* Voting: I favor competitors that present the most logical arguments, and clearly explain how impacts of their case outweigh those presented by opponents. To win my vote on framework arguments, they must be well developed with clear links to your case.

* Other Preferences: Questions should be concise and relevant, not long rebuttals with a half-hearted question at the end. I don't consider road maps to be off-time. The clock starts when you begin speaking, and I will cut you off if you go more than a few seconds over time.

I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.

I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

For Speech Events:

Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.

Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!

pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

I have been a parent judge for three years. My paradigms include clarity of arguments, minimal jargon and organization.

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Hi! My name is Ian, and I use he/him pronouns.

I was a policy debater in Idaho who graduated in 2019. I'm familiar with and comfortable evaluating most arguments. A few things:

I'm a flow judge. It's been some time since I last debated, so please make voters clear and do the work weighing them against each-other so I don't have to. I like kritiks but please don't assume I know the literature.

I'm comfortable with speed, but please slow down and speak louder on your tags. If I can't flow your speech without the doc, your speaker points won't be awesome.

Debate is a game. Please have fun and be nice!

I am a lay judge, albeit one with experience judging debate at this point. I am familiar with basic debate terminology and structure, but I have never debated myself, so progressive debating is mostly beyond me.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have already told you I am a lay judge, so make sure you are not speaking too fast for me to understand the words that come out of your mouth. This is debate, not auctioneering.

Be civil to one another. I expect you to show respect to your opponent(s) and avoid any disparaging behavior or remarks.

I appreciate off-time (or on-time) road maps when you can provide them, as well as signposting along the way.

Please be civil and clear in your speech. I'm not a fan of spreading or Kritiks. I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments.

Affiliations--

Lewis and Clark College '23.

Assistant coach at Lake Oswego.

Background--

Hey! I'm Eden :) I'm an alum of the LC IE team and no longer debate, but I was a nat circuit LD'er in high school from 2015-2017. I competed as an independent, mostly attending bid tournaments in California. I mostly read phil affs and K's, but don't let that influence what types of args you read. I'm happy to evaluate anything so do whatever you're best at!

--Only arguments I won't listen to are ones that actively make the round unsafe (ie. overtly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.)--

Speed--

**Speed is the only element of your debate style that I think you should adapt for me.**

I've been completely out of debate for almost five years and don't judge often, so while I'm comfortable evaluating all types of arguments, I'm probably not going to be able to flow spreading at your top speed. If you're super fast (ie. 350-400+ wpm), please go significantly slower than normal, include me on your flash/speech doc email, and really slow down for any important analytics/tags/signposts. My goal is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, and I can only do that if I flow it properly. I will say slow or clear as many times as needed, but it may affect your speaker points.

Crystalizing and weighing impacts will go a really long way in getting my ballot. Please tell me exactly what argument(s) I'm voting for you on and why.

*Keep in mind I have zero knowledge of the current LD topic or any new jargon from the past few years, so you might need to spell things out for me a tiny bit more than normal.

Theory--

I was never a very good theory debater (but complete respect for those who are!) so if you read theory, please make sure to spend a little extra time explaining the arguments for me. I'm going to default to reasonability because I'm not fully confident in my ability to evaluate theory line by line, but I think strong theory arguments are very important for debate so please feel free to run it.

If you end up collapsing to theory, taking time to thoroughly explain the abuse to me (and how the interp solves) in the nr or 2ar is probably more important than blippy line by line, because I'm not well-versed enough in the nuances of theory debate to extrapolate the argument for you based on a single sentence.

**Side note: spreading a frivolous theory shell (ie. with only hypothetical abuse) against a lay/traditional opponent is one of the only things that would make me give you low speaks, because I just find that overtly exclusionary.**

K's--

I love Ks and critical affs so please feel free to read them! I understand most critical lit pretty thoroughly but over-explaining any really complex internal link arguments wouldn't hurt, especially if you're reading something on the obscure side. Other than that, just make sure it's clear what your alt actually means and tell me if your impacts are pre- or post-fiat (or both).

Keep in mind, an ethical framework linking into the K doesn't inherently mean it's false. If the impacts of the K don't link to the standard, you need to engage the framework debate directly because I won't presume that the K comes before ethics solely because you tell me it has pre-fiat impacts.

Framework--

I was largely a framework debater in HS (mainly affs but also the occasional NC) so I'd love to hear a good phil case. IMO a strong syllogism that you know the ins and outs of is usually better than a bunch of weak independent warrants. Make sure you explain the impact calculus under your standard, especially if its anything complicated.

Advantages, Disads, CP's, etc.--

Not much to say here--I'm always happy to learn about the topic lit and these debates can be super fun to watch. I'm always super impressed by LD'ers who know the ins and outs of the topic! Really clear crystallization and impact weighing is definitely key here. Err on the side of over-explaining link arguments, especially in rebuttals. Make sure your impacts matter under the winning framework.

Speaker Points--

I probably give higher than average speaks, especially if the round has good clash and strong weighing.

Good Luck! :)

I did debate all four years in HS, mostly Lincoln Douglas, but I'm experienced with all kinds. I tend to be swayed more easily by arguments with strong moral implications. (Especially in LD - Value and Criterion are of the utmost importance, as I see them as the spearpoint of your whole case) I am okay with speed, but I do prefer a moderate enunciation so I can hear exactly what you're saying 100% of the time. I will flow the round so if you have something you'd like me to note you can point it out in your speaking time. I also like voters, so if you can summarize your main points at the end as a voter I feel like I fully understood where you were coming from and connect them to the argument at large, I'll keep them in mind as I score.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Background: I did extemp and policy in high school, I did extemp in college, I am currently a law student. I ran more pragmatic arguments in high school. That being said, I haven't heard fast spreading in a long time, so please be as clear as possible, especially online. If you cannot be clear then please speak slower.

Affs: I am fine with critical affs, but you need to defend topicality, solvency, etc. you need to be crystal clear about what you are doing and what is happening.

Negs: I'm fine with k's, but cover your bases. I am not well read into critical theory, so if you are obscure theory or a complicated take on theory, explain it like you are talking to a five year old. I will vote neg on presumption, but the burden flips if negative runs a counteradvocacy.

Topicality: I love it. Run more T. Run jurisdiction T. Make sure your shell works, but run T

Theory: sure.

Any questions, feel free to email: aaronlutz3939@gmail.com

Background:

HS competitor at Van High School (TX) from 2010-2014

Attended The University of Texas at Tyler, BA in communication and political science

College competitor (Parli) 2015-2018

Director of Forensics at Lake Travis HS (2018-2019)

Current MA student in communication (UTT)

Assistant Coach at The University of Texas at Tyler (2019-Present)

.

Judging philosophy

TLDR: Be nice and debate the way you feel most comfortable.

If I am not on an email chain PLEASE repeat all important texts (alt, ROB, interpretations, etc.). I want to have them on my flow word for word.

I don't really care what style the debate round takes as long as there are warranted arguments. I want you to weigh arguments for me at the end of the round. I base speaker points mainly on the arguments made in the round rather than actual speaking style bc speaks are ableist, sexist, racist, etc.. Be kind to each other in rounds. The easiest way to get bad speaker points from me is to be rude in CX, make ad hominem attacks, or be offensive. I can keep up with most speed and I am fine with it. I will clear/loud/slow you twice before I stop flowing. Off case in LD is cool with me but if your opponent is running a more "traditional" case don't assume you just win - their args are still valid and will very much be weighed.

T/framework: I don't like voting on unnecessary theory, show me proven abuse. I have a pretty high threshold here. Also, args that theory is problematic are totally valid, make them if they are applicable to the situation.

CP ground: CPs are fine, advantage CPs are my fav. PICs are probably cheating? I don't know, this is probably an instance where a super tight theory debate would persuade me but obviously I'll still flow it and vote there if I need to.

DAs:

Don't assume I will fill in the blanks for you on the typical impact scenarios, you still need to explain it. We have all heard that extinction scenario a million times so one more won't hurt. Make sure the link story makes sense and isn't super far fetched, I'm a sucker for probability.

Ks:

Cool, love them, but don't assume I know every phil argument ever. Be prepared to thoroughly explain it to me and your opponent. If you are unwilling or unable to answer questions about it in cross then I will probably grant your opponents quite a bit of wiggle room here. Ks without an alt operate as a DA in my mind, don't be afraid to kick the alt if that's the right strat. I hate generic links. I also hate generic alts - don't just "alt- reject".

Performance:

I was primarily a performance/ID politics debater in college so I am here for this, speak your truth. Remember to tell me why the ballot is important to you.

Parli specific:

I don't know if this is considered old fashioned now or whatever but first and last minute of the speech is protected time - let her speak!

All points of order should be assumed under consideration. Please don't just sit there and argue. Make the point and the response and move on, I promise I'm flowing.

If you have time to write me a copy of important texts that would be super. If not, repeat them slowly please.

.

Feel free to ask questions before the round. I disclose when I can but not every tournament is cool with that/I respect the schedule.

Hi my name is Max O'Hare

Pronouns: He/him

OES (Oregon Episcopal School) '19

Wesleyan '23

I did policy for 3 years in high school and was relatively successful my senior year, qualifying to the TOC.

Put me on the email chain: mohare@wesleyan.edu

TL;DR: I'm fine with nearly all arguments and would much rather you debate what you are comfortable with than try to adapt your argumentation to my style and not do it well. Just have fun and win the flow and you'll be golden in my eyes.

Please go slow on tags and analytics, clearly distinguishing them from the bodies of cards. I feel as if online debate has exacerbated the problem policy debate has with debaters being unclear so make sure you're clear while speaking.

I'm still new to this topic so I'm working on adjusting to the terminology and T debates should take extra care to paint a picture of what the topic looks like under your interp.

Here are some general guidelines if you have me in the back of the room:

1. Tech > Truth. Debate is a game and I can be convinced of anything. A dropped argument is a true one. Everything else on my paradigm is irrelevant if you are winning whatever you are going for on the flow.

2. Evidence Quality Matters. I strictly only evaluate highlighted warrants. At the end of the debate, the team that has most skillfully utilized and spun high-quality evidence is in the best position to win.

3. Non-K neg positions. Politics DAs, Process CPs, PICs, conditional advocacies? I've seen them all and enjoying hearing unique strategies! Regardless, a proliferation of generics is inferior to thought-out, specific strats. I am directly in the middle for most of the theory debates.

4. K Debate. Fairness is an impact, but that does not mean that arguments about why fairness shouldn't be weighed as highly as other impacts aren't valid. The affirmative should probably be attached to the topic in some way, but I can be convinced otherwise if you explain your thesis well. For the NEG, links should never be of omission and should probably be specific to the plan. I read basic K's in highschool and I'm familiar with a lot of K literature now that I have a year of college under my belt, but that doesn't mean you should forgo explaining the thesis of more complex K's.

5. Impact Calc & Turns Case. To quote Dr. Bricker: “Turns case matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/FIAT outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the AFF doesn’t solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1AR.” Final rebuttals, feel free to write my ballot for me! If I look at my flow at the end of the round without a way to evaluate which impacts matter more I will default to my own interpretations which is probably not what you want.

6. Other. Do not make any assumptions about the other team's identity or background. Additionally, I'll drop you and check out for the rest of the debate if you misgender, harass, are racist towards, (etc.) your opponents. I also tend to believe that being purposefully aggressive towards your opponents is not productive and sometimes incredibly harmful so rethink your strategy if it involves abusing your opponents.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before we start the round.

For debate: quality over quantity for arguments (I'm allergic to spreading). If it's too fast for me to follow, I can't tell if it's a solid argument, so it means nothing to me. I'm more interested in engaging your opponent's arguments rather than tossing out a lot in hopes that an argument gets dropped.

I'll also say that maintaining clash in a debate is important to me. I am very unsympathetic to positions (counterplans, for example) that seek to evade the central issue in a resolution. Exploring positions that may not be popular or agree with your own opinions strikes me as one of the most valuable parts of debate, and you will do much better with me arguing those positions forcefully rather than trying to reframe a debate in terms that are more "comfortable."

For speech events, you still have to say something that is coherent and intelligible, but I have found that speeches that naturally vary in pace and tone keep me engaged much better than those that do not.

FWIW, I'm a science and math prof in my regular life. While I never competed in debate, I run lots of them with my students!

they/them

I did four years of debate in high school, mostly Parli but with a fair amount of LD and a bit of Policy. I also did two years of college LD. I can handle pretty high speed as long as I have access to the document. PLEASE slow down at least a bit for theory unless you’re sharing the text of your shell. Here's my email if you prefer email chains: kellenrice@lclark.edu

I'm open to any kind of argument. If you're doing something technical that your opponent doesn't understand, try your best to make the argument accessible. Also, don't assume I know your K lit - always assume you need to do a basic explanation of your argument. I’ll accept anything, but naturally you still have to win the argument.

Debate is a game, and like most games it’s nonsense. I really appreciate nonsense - please have fun with your arguments! That being said, if you do nonsense, please try to keep it from becoming messy.

Be respectful to each other

If I see bigoted arguments or unethical behavior, I will most likely drop you.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts, seeing as this isn't very detailed.

Paradigm

Add me to the email chain - CyanRidge@lclark.edu

I am a second year at Lewis and Clark College. I compete in LD and competed at NFA. I competed in policy, public forum, and congressional debate all throughout high school. I have been to nationals, the DCI all years, and placed at state tournaments.

My philosophy & experience: I have judged two high school tournaments this year so I know a little amount about the current topic.

I will listen to any argument and am very open-minded. I evaluate the link debate heavily when facing nuke war impacts. MOST IMPORTANTLY: I will absolutely not tolerate any behavior that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/discriminatory in any way and will not hesitate to vote you down for it. Be nice to your opponents in cx don't make me angry.

Speed?

Any speed that you are comfortable with is fine with me. I will tell you to slow or clear if I am having a hard time. As long as both teams can spread and keep up then fast is excellent. BE considerate of opponents who may not spread and match their energy.

K's?

I love performative affs, k debates, and identity politics. I’m generally familiar with most K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about.

Topical policy?

fantastic! go off.

I really appreciate impact calc done in the NR. Although speed and tech are important, explaining your arguments in context is the most valuable skill to learn in the debate.

I write lots on ballots, but feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at cyanridge@lclark.edu

Debates are meant to be educational for all, clear to listeners, fair in competing content and skill, and charitable to the opposing side. As your judge, I want to see your side take seriously the responsibility to educate the room on the topic at hand, assuming little to no prior knowledge. Your judge approaches each topic with an open mind, so you should be filling my mind with exactly what you want me to add to my flow. Educating means speaking at a reasonable pace for understanding. Every person in the room should be able to follow your arguments clearly, the first time around (or, if applicable, through cross-examination). What this means is you are speaking slow enough, signposting often, stating links explicitly, and impacting your arguments. (Don't just tell me I should value safety, liberty, democracy, etc. Persuade why I should value it or why it matters.) Furthermore, if you sense your opponents are less experienced, knowledgeable, or prepared, leave them room to still engage in the debate and learn something. This means asking good questions and answering questions in a helpful manner. Finally, winning arguments take down the BEST argument from the opposing side, not the worst. Follow the philosophical principle of charity, assume best intent, be courteous, and practice empathy.

DON'T squirrel, run topicality unless absolutely necessary, fabricate evidence, talk over others, spread your case, drop arguments, use derogatory language, or engage in personal attacks.

DO prepare a strong case, speak well, practice mutual respect, read and think critically, and seek not only to win arguments but to understand other viewpoints.

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

I've done LD for like 6 years (and currently compete at the college level) so I'm pretty familiar with the terminology/structure of the debate. That being said, I obviously have my preferences, along with things I think I shouldn't have to say but will anyways for the sake of making sure we're all on the same page.

First and foremost, some general things:

Please be sure you are touching on and engaging with substantial arguments brought up by your opponent in order to ensure an engaging round for all parties involved. Consider the implications of their ideas, the context of these proposals, and actually put some thought into your responses. If you only read generics that barely link (w/o T saying they're impossible to link to, obviously) you put yourself at more of a risk for a vote down if your opponent is critically engaging with the presented ideas.

Also, please do your research. If you're discussing something directly stated in the resolution you should probably have at least a first page of google level of knowledge on the topic. This is more of a plea to the debate community in general, but it'll also help the debate a lot if you can actually engage in an uncarded conversation on the topic.

Finally, please be kind to each other in round. While I'm aware that some people approach "flustering" their opponent as a strategy, please do not try this with me as your judge. If you cannot win a debate in which your opponent isn't being actively heckled, you may want to reconsider your cases and argument structure. So we are totally clear, being kind includes not yelling at your opponent during CX. You can press them for info, but be respectful about it. Also, obviously slow down if your opponent calls slow, respect their identity and ideas, etc.

On the more technical side:

You can really run whatever you want with me, but make sure you are engaging with the debate in it's entirety. Basically, even if you're reading a K (or something similar) make sure you still respond to case, or at the bare minimum crossapply the K args and explain how they relate.

If you hadn't gathered already, I really like Ks. You're welcome to run them if you feel comfy with the structure and know enough about the topic to do it well. While I can follow the technical language, you MUST explain the concept behind your critique in simple english during the round. This is honestly the hardest part of Ks, and if you can't explain it simply I will assume you don't know your topic very well. Also, it makes it less accessible for your opponent, which is the opposite of what you should be trying to do with a K (they should be educational, IMO).

Also, I will always vote on T if there is proven abuse. While I know that this can sometimes be frustrating, if there is proven abuse I stick with the idea that I cannot consider the other args made in round until that is in some way resolved. Please adequately respond to T, it crushes my soul to vote on halfhearted 30 second shells that end up getting a collapse. I also respect T so much because I treat it as a check on in round abuse, which I think is important in LD. That said, please do not read T just to read T. I'll overlook one or two shells as a time strat as long as theres actual link and abuse proven, but once you start reading more than 2 you should have a good reason. Reading throwaway T takes away from Ts power as a checkback on actual abuse that may make the debate round inaccessible to some, please be mindful of this.

Aside from that I don't think I have any particularly strong/unique opinions on anything. Obviously CPs should prove competition, DAs should have uniqueness, etc. Feel free to ask me any other questions you have before round, I'm happy to answer.

Email: haltonstancil@gmail.com

---For everything---

• NO SPREADING PLEASE!

- Remember to speak clearly and concisely!

-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable

-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round, number your points

- Refer to your tags/author’s content for referencing cards instead of “author date”, makes evidence way easier to identify during rebuttals and extensions

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

General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.

Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.

K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.

Hi, I'm Josie (she/her)! I did LD for four years in high school, as well as HI, and I dabbled in other speech types as well.

TL:DR - please speak clearly, connect your points, don't be rude.

Speed- As long as I can understand you, you're good to go. I will let you know if I need you to slow down (speed/clear). Crystallization and slowing down for sign posting, tags, or important analytics helps me write down what you need me to know. Probably not your fastest speed ever.

Theory / K's- I didn't run a lot of these, but I can understand them. If you run these, please makes your points clear, and explain your arguments well. Really sell what you're presenting.

Framework - Love a good framework debate, please connect all your arguments back to the resolution.

Some more general notes- I will basically hear any argument or case, as long as you present it in a logical way. Impact calc will go a long way with me. I will be writing down and/or flowing through what you tell me to, so be clear when presenting and refuting arguments. However, if I see any glaring issues or flaws in your arguments, I will also take those into consideration.

I don't like nuclear extinction as an impact, so if you're gonna run it you better make it good. Ask me about it if you care that much.

You and I know to be competing right now is *insanely* stressful, so I'm proud of you for doing it! :) Everyone will have tech issues once in a while, so I will be understanding if anything happens. Please do the same for me.

My number one request is please don't be a jerk in round. Don't interrupt your opponent and be polite.

I will be disclosing and giving RFD if the tournament allows. Feel free to ask me any questions before we get started.

TLDR

Hi y'all, I'm Taisei (he/him pronouns). I did policy for five years and LD for one year.

Former West High Debater, L&C 2025

Please put me on the email chain, or feel free to email me if you have questions - lc21-0970@lclark.edu

Do what ever you do best - just know I'm not familiar with a lot of K literature (I feel best prepared to judge Cap, Security, Abolition, Orientalism, and Ks like that). So, if you want to read a different K (looking at you pomo Ks), make sure you explain your arguments well.

Golden Rule - Don't be a dick. If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I'll nuke your speaks.

Tech >Truth

I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to be clear. If you're not, I'll say "clear". If you keep speaking in a way I can't understand after having been warned, I'll stop flowing. Also, slow down for blocks and taglines. If you don't, I may miss something important.

If no impact framing mechanism is provided, I default to consequentialism.

For Middle Schoolers and Novices

If you read my online paradigm and mention it when I'm judging you, I'll boost your speaks. I think that online paradigms are very useful because it's a space for judges to explain their philosophies in-depth, and I'd like to encourage debaters get into the habit of checking paradigms.

I'll listen to and vote for any kind of argument. Just make sure to explain it and do impact calculus. If you need to choose between making a bunch of shallow arguments or one really well fleshed out argument, make the fleshed out argument. If you read an argument that isn't a part of the assigned evidence packet, I'm very likely to vote against you because the packet exists so that both teams are guaranteed to be prepared to debate. If you read beyond the packet, you're ruining the learning experience for your opponents.

This is just a pet peeve, but there are a few phrases that younger debaters use that are unnecessary and drive me crazy. Instead of saying "Now time for an off-time roadmap," you can just say "the order will be..." and then give the order. That's much more succinct and it makes you sound more like a person instead of someone who's just repeating what a coach told you to say.

For Policy

Most of my debate career has been in policy, and for most of that time I was a 2N that read mainly policy arguments. For my senior year, I was a 2A that read policy affs. If you're reading a policy aff, make sure you have a good solvency mechanism that is unique to your aff. If it can really solved by adv CPs really easily, that's not a good sign. I like DAs and CPs and that's mainly what I went for as a 2N.

So while I'm definitely the most comfortable judging policy arguments, I can judge Ks as well. Just make sure you flesh it out well, as you would for any other argument and don't keep reusing the same key words and phrases as if they replace a warranted argument. Especially if you're reading a Pomo K (I will be honest, while I will vote for it, I'm not personally fond of Pomo so you gotta explain it really well)! Links of omission aren't links.

I'm fine with either team reading theory, but if you go for it make sure you explain it out completely. If you read a T violation and don't have an impact, I don't see a reason to vote for it even if you win your standards.

Don't go for everything in the 2AR/2NR. There should only be a few arguments so you don't spread yourself too thin. If you go for theory, it should be 5 minutes of theory.

For LD

Most of what I said about policy will also apply for LD. I read mostly policy arguments (policy affs, CPs, DAs), but I have also read Ks and theory in LD. I'm okay voting for any of those, just be sure to flesh out your arguments and don't just keep repeating the same phrases without any analysis.

I default to 1AR theory is okay, no RVIs, and theory means drop the team/debater. If you want me to think otherwise, explain why these shouldn't be the standards.

I have no problem with debaters reading new ev in the 1AR or 2NR, as long as it's to support an argument that was previously read (you don't get a new DA in the 2NR).

I don't like T Nebel. If you're really convincing I'll still vote for it, but do be warned, I don't like it.

I don't think you need a value and criterion, and if none is provided I will default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. I've done both progressive and traditional LD, so feel free to do either with me. That being said - if you're doing progressive LD and your opponent is used to doing traditional, I'd encourage you to make the round as accessible to them as possible. I don't think you need to then pick up a value and criterion, but try to be nice (i.e. don't spread super fast, don't barrage the aff with 7 off in the 1NR, etc). Debate should be a place for learning as well as competing

Lay judge. 

This is my daughter's third year competing, so I have moderate judging experience in speech and debate events.

For debate: Please do not spread. Signposting is extremely helpful. Make sure that you are creating the arguments for me. Clearly lay out your impacts and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. I won't flow cross but I will be listening. Time yourselves. I will value tech over truth for the most part but avoid making far-fetched arguments.

For speech: I value good speaking style and originality. 

Overall, be kind and courteous and have fun!

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

I did one year of LD debate in high school. I judge better on, and prefer hearing, substance debate, and so stay away from theory. Basically, view me as a lay judge. Speak clearly and do not be rude towards your opponent.

My email for the email chain is: catherinezheng2015@gmail.com