The Cal Invitational at UC Berkeley

2014 — CA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Shailesh Agarwal Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Tim Alderete The Meadows School 7 rounds

Andrew Amoranto Harker School 7 rounds None

Kapil Anand Sierra Canyon School 3 rounds None

Dmitry Andreyev Rancho Bernardo 7 rounds None

Stephen Babb Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds None

Chris Bentley Brentwood 1 rounds

Sandeep Bhuta St. Ignatius College Prep 7 rounds

David Bower Miramonte 3 rounds None

Bekah Boyer Greenhill School 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 2, 2020 at 1:41 PM CDT

Updated for 2020

Top of mind:

· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.

· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate

About me: I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston from 2005-2009. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons from 2010-2018. I haven't been actively involved in debate at all since 2018, but below is still true - I'm just "old."

I'm helping Trinity High School in Texas for the 2020 Debate season.

I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.

IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.

DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."

Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
<http://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/>

I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/bin/view/Main/

Speech Docs:

You can e-mail speech docs to bekahboyer@gmail.com

If I'm sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.

Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.

What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
and/or
b) don't have on the flow

o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .

What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion

Speaking:

· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left. Also, now that I'm old (and during e-Debate), please default to going slowly, esp on card tags and theory args.

· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).

o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points

· Speaker Points, in general-

o I try to average a 28.5

o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.

o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.

o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.

o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 29 automatically instead of 27.5.

-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point

Argument Specific Questions:
Theory

o I don't like frivolous theory arguments - I tend to find them underdeveloped and not enjoyable to judge. BUT, I love topicality debate, especially if the 2n goes all in on it.

o I default to drop the arg over drop the debater

o The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory

o I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given

o If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.

o I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through

o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"

· RVI's –

o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).

o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)

o I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!

Default Spikes/Presumption/etc:

· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.

· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.

Narratives/Micro political arguments –

· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.

· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way.

· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.

"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm.

Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)

Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:

· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.

· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.

Other Issues

Flex Prep:

I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."

Behavior:
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.

Questions?:
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at bekahboyer@gmail.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.

Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.

Camilla Boylan Mountain View Idaho 7 rounds None

Kelli Brill University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Charles Brown St. Thomas HS 7 rounds None

Barbara Bryan Los Altos High School 7 rounds None

max bugrov University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

William Burke Strake Jesuit 7 rounds

Todd Bystrom Mountain View High School 3 rounds None

Jesus Caro Oxford Academy 7 rounds None

Kristen Carriere Star Valley High School 7 rounds None

Alex Carter Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Henry Chen Harker School 7 rounds None

Jerry Chen Harker School 7 rounds None

Bryan Chiou Presentation High School 7 rounds None

Von Christiansen Beaver High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:26 PM MDT

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

Benjamin Clancy College Prep 7 rounds None

Becky Conlon Saratoga High School 7 rounds

Jerry Crist Strake Jesuit 7 rounds

Ben Cummings Clovis East High School 7 rounds None

Matt DeLateur Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 8:19 AM PDT

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

Sanjeev Desai Saratoga High School 4 rounds None

Jonathan Diehl Green Valley High School 7 rounds

Magadi Diwakar Leland High School 7 rounds None

Armand Domalewski Evergreen 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 15, 2017 at 10:29 AM PDT

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations.

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2. Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:

1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations.

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

Mia Epner University of California, Berkeley None

Jesilyn Faust Cypress High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 4, 2022 at 3:28 PM EDT

Background:

I debated 4 years of NPDA parli in college for CSULB. I have since received my M.A. in Spanish, and am currently a Global Studies PHD candidate at UCSB. I have been out of the circuit for a while, but I think parli is a very important form of debate and I care a lot about equity and access within it.

General:

I am pretty rusty with speed, and I will call slow/clear if I can’t understand you. Please put all your texts for plans, CPs, interps, ROTBs, and alt texts in the chat, and say them slowly. Please take at least one POI in your speech. I like it when teams are respectful, substantive, and engaging. In general, I believe the debaters in the room are the ones who should decide what the debate should look like, and my defaults/preferences are not hard and fast if you decide to argue otherwise .

Case:

Weighing and signposting are very important to me.

I am comfortable with all counterplans and see perms as a test of competition.

Theory:

I think I have a higher threshold for theory than most judges on the circuit, and I am not a huge fan of generic and blippy theory shells. I really dislike theory that discards entire forms of debate such as Ks bad theory. I will vote on whatever layer you tell me to vote on, but I will be much happier evaluating a case or K debate. I default to competing interpretations and am not a huge fan of RVIs.

Kritiks:

I love Ks and have debated them a lot. While I am not up to date on circuit preferences and arguments, I am pretty open minded about kritikal debate. I am widely familiar with most K literature, but please err on the side of caution and be accessible to both me and your opponents with your arguments. I personally prefer materialist arguments, but I am okay with any literature as long as your alt text is clear and your solvency is coherent. Please be especially slow and clear when reading a K, it’s been a while since I have evaluated kritikal debate.

Truth v. Tech:

I won’t Google or verify your claims, and I don’t vote for unwarranted arguments. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I am very willing to intervene against exclusionary and problematic (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc) arguments.

I believe debate is an important place to discuss real world issues and I am very supportive of debaters centering their experiences in the arguments they read. However, I ask debaters to remain cautious of reading arguments that are reliant on their identity, particularly when it involves making assumptions about your opponents identity. I support every debater's survival strategy and understand that these arguments can be necessary to read, but ask that debaters be explicit in providing me a framework with which to evaluate these arguments and experiences when doing so.

Speaker Points:

I will generally give around 27.5-28.5 points and won’t go lower unless you are rude or exclusionary.

Sean Fee Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Leshek Fiedorowicz Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Travis Fife Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 6, 2023 at 2:29 AM PDT

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Ryan Fink Harker School 3 rounds

Lynne Floto Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds

Michael Fried Brentwood 7 rounds None

Lisa Fujita Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM PDT

Classic/Policy Judge: Debated Policy for 2 years, debated LD for 2 more, and qualified for States every year. Now I help coach team debate for Rancho Bernardo High School.

I highly detest debaters who use jargon and speed as a crutch. Intelligence is dressed in word economy and purposeful organization. Don't fit a ten minute speech in six minutes. Explain your position succinctly without simplifying or sacrificing the power of your argument.

You are here to debate. You. Not your evidence. Not your philosopher. All the research you did to prepare for the round is to help you craft YOUR case. Do not let the evidence or your philosopher debate your case for you. It will be obvious during cross-ex. If your warrant is just two sentences, your argument is weak or you clearly do not understand your claim. Please feel free to supply two or three warrants to strengthen your point.

Refutations deserve the same attention as contentions. Claim-Warrant-Impact.

Extensions should expand the debate, not rehash what was just said.

Rebuttals are reserved for crystallization, so do not just flow the round. I already have the flow in front of me. Review the Weighing Mechanism and Voting Issues. Always be working toward the end game.

Definitions/Topicality/Kritiks: Debaters never invest enough time in them. If you run "a priori", it better be the first thing you say every time you stand up and you better commit at least a full minute each time. That being said, there is nothing more brilliant than a well executed "a priori".

Know that I am well acquainted with the topic. Uniqueness will get you far.

Disposition: Never insult your opponent. Don't waste our time telling us what points were dropped. Misrepresentation will not be tolerated. Hyperboles, exaggerations, and extreme words make you sound unreasonable. The debater closer to the center almost always wins. Humor trumps all.

Brandon Garcia University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Sandilya Garimella Leland High School 7 rounds None

Andrew Glantz Brentwood 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 10, 2014 at 9:42 AM PDT

I am a freshman at Washington University in St. Louis.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at Brentwood School in Los Angeles, CA. I debated for four years and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years as well as qualifying to State and Nationals.

Short Version: I'm ok with most things and will vote off the flow. Speed: OK, but not top speed. Theory: OK. Kritiks: Don't like. Complex Philosophy: Go slow in explaining it. Extensions- High threshold, extend warrants and cards, not just author name. Speaks: strategy, clarity, CX, clash

Longer version:

Speed: I'm decent with speed as long as it's clear. If you are doing something not stock then go slower. Go slower on framework- I will have a higher threshold as a judge for understanding arguments the first time they are made. I would advise you on not going top speed in front of me so I don't miss arguments, but you can still spread and I'll be able to follow it in most cases.

Theory: I'm good with theory and debated it a lot when I competed. I'm open to any type of theory argument, but I guess I default to competing interpretations, theory is not a RVI, fairness and education are voters. But give me some argument for anything and I'll lean that way- no strong preferences there.

Kritiks: I don't like K's- if you run them in front of me, note that I think they're stupid and unless you run it really well and explain it in a coherent manner I'll probably not vote for you. It'll also probably hurt your speaks to be honest.

I like clash- do it and you'll also get good speaks. Be responsive and don't be repetitive. Read my facial expressions and see if I'm flowing to see if you should keep explaining the argument or if I got it.

Extensions: I have a high threshold for extensions. Make sure you extend a claim, warrant, and impact in your rebuttals. I find it hard to vote on arguments that aren't clearly extended, EVEN if they are dropped.

Speaker points: Primarily strategy and efficiency in round, then clarity and persuasiveness and not being mean to your opponent, also things like being good in CX and clashing on arguments and interacting with your opponents arguments clearly

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round. I'm open to anything except openly offensive arguments. Have fun.

Kuhuk Goyal Mission San Jose 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2019 at 5:04 AM PDT

kuhukg@gmail.com

I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.

I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:

I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.

I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.

My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.

I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.

Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.

That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

Michael Greenbury University of California, Berkeley

Last changed on Sat February 6, 2021 at 12:48 AM PDT

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Gil Gutierrez C.K. McClatchy High School 3 rounds

Daniel Hada Monta Vista High School 4 rounds None

Chris Harris Saint Francis High School 7 rounds None

Michael Harris Presentation High School 7 rounds

Jim Hart Mountain View High School 3 rounds None

Mason Holt Arcadia High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 15, 2014 at 1:08 AM PDT

Experience: 4 years HS parli, 2 year HS pufo
General:

I vote on the flow and default to net benefits.
I enter a round as tabula rasa as possible. If the other team does not refute a claim, then I will likely believe it and keep it across the flow.
Your aesthetic performance will not impact your speaks as much as your debate skills. If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. I don't think I should have to bring this up, but I've seen enough racism and sexism in high school rounds that apparently I do. Don't be a dick.
I have little experience with Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate. Therefore, you won't need to spoon-feed me arguments, but some very brief explanation for LD or Policy specific topics would be immensely appreciated.
I enjoy policy, as you might be able to gain from my experiences. Debates solely about the value criteria might make me fall asleep, although I can see that at times they are necessary.
Spreading is highly discouraged. I have a particular disdain for it, and I'd take fewer heavily impacted arguments to many weak arguments any day.
Overall, chill out and have fun!
If you have any questions about college, from one debater to another, I'd be happy to help.

Flowing:

I'll let you know if I can't understand your speed. Please slow for taglines or anything you want on my paper in detail. If I'm not flowing, you either make no sense or should move on.
After the time finishes, I stop writing completely.

Preferences:

I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as there's a reason for it. Don't use procedures as time sucks.
I'm not okay with you excluding your opponents from the round--so slow down when they call clear and don't expect me to weigh the round on any framework that excludes the other team.
Please do not rely on cards to compensate for a lack of analysis. But cards can help a lot. Balance wisely.
I'll be weighing your impacts to determine the round. The value/value criterion debate should be a means of weighing cases in general against each other, but I will still be looking at each case, so please have distinct impacts. Not everything is dehum. Not everything is nuke war. That's okay. "Improves the economy" and "violates the constitution" are not enough for me, however.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime before the round starts.

Alice Huang Kamiak High School 6 rounds

Richard Idriss University of California, Berkeley

Last changed on Thu December 31, 2020 at 10:10 AM PDT

If you are time-pressed, reading the bold will give you a general idea of my judging philosophy, and reading the unbolded text around what is bolded should give you the full picture. **For Alta** Please scroll below to the Policy section and find the post-Meadows update.

Conflicts: Juan Diego CHS, El Cerrito, The Davidson Academy of Nevada, Cal Berkeley, Southwestern College

I debated for four years in high school for Juan Diego in Utah (2008-2012) - two years in LD and two in Policy, and for a year and a half in college Policy for Cal Berkeley (2012, 2014). In my time in HS I qualified for the TOC, advanced to late outrounds at various majors, attended the greenhill round robin, and earned top speaker at the Cal tournament. As a college debater I took second at the Cal college tournament and was a quarterfinalist at the UK freshman breakout.

I'm currently a high school Policy Debate coach for The Davidson Academy of Reno, Nevada, and a college Policy Debate coach for Southwestern College. I also do work online teaching speech and debate to students in China with Global Academic Commons.

I have a background studying a fair amount of different strands of academic literature that debaters would probably label as "K arguments" so interdisciplinary epistemological criticisms make me smile. Don't take this to mean your speeches can be intensely jargon heavy and inaccessible - debate is a communicative activity not an academic conference where participants present research papers. ** Extra speaker points if you are so well versed in whatever theory you are arguing that it comes across in your speeches and cross-x answers, and you seek to inform rather than obfuscate with your responses (this means for you security/threat construction/cap/[insert other structural logic] folks, start coming up with examples of failed foreign policies whose justifications rely on whatever logic you are critiquing - know some history). **

Some thoughts POST-BERKELEY 2019: I am tired of seeing students no-show to tournaments just because they can't clear. If you are already out of the tournament (0-3 or worse) when I am judging you, I will be increasingly generous with speaker points the further down the bracket you all are (barring hateful speech or lack of effort of course). I think you deserve recognition for showing up in spite of not being able to clear, which is an act of respect for both the tournaments you attend, as well as your opponents.

Long story short:

Debate is debate - my position as a judge isn't to tell debaters what arguments they can and can't make, but to decide, given the arguments presented to me by the debaters in-round, who has done the better debating. This means I look to write reasons for decision that have the least amount of intervention on my part to interpret arguments as possible so be sure to warrant and impact your extensions.

If there is some blatantly obvious gut-check, round over concession (i.e. negative block never answers conditionality bad and they actually read an advocacy that is conditional, someone concedes a T shell - like imagine you're debating a novice or someone fresh out of JV and they drop something absolutely crucial) please err toward using less of your speech time. I watched an elim-level varsity team at Stanford crush a pretty new JV team and there was actually no reason for the aff team to use anything beyond a minute of prep throughout the debate - nearly every flow was conceded. Yet the 2AR took the remaining 9:45 of prep the aff team had left..... I will reward your speaker points if you choose not to use all of your prep or speech time in instances like this.

A note on in-round language Ks like ableism, "you guys", etc.: I think apologizing can be a legitimate answer to a lot of these arguments but it needs to not be coupled with an immediate defense of the language used. If you choose to make a meaningful apology it should probably be done conversationally, not at full speed, because it should pose a material consequence on your speech if you don't think it should cost you the ballot. Otherwise, debate it. Sometimes engaging with problematic discourse is good - look at movements to reclaim the word queer by LGBTQ communities, or the history of the N word's modification and use by black Americans. All I'm asking is that you pick a lane and stick with it.

Short story long:

While I may have some proclivities about how arguments should be read, which I will try to be as earnest about as possible below, I as much as possible judge based solely off of what arguments have been made by the debaters themselves. I think it is possible to have a debate in-round about whether that's all I should base my decision on - if you want to make an epistemology argument justify it and be responsive.

I will flow the debate line-by-line unless arguments are made for me to do otherwise, or a request made before a more performative speech. This means if I'm listening to a performance aff and haven't been told not to flow line-by-line, I will write down what I think are the implied arguments of different parts of your speech.

Good debaters make arguments, great debaters explain why those arguments matter. This means a massive spread of arguments isn't always the best way to go. Consolidate your arguments as the debate moves on and try your best to "write my ballot for me" with your overviews of arguments in the debate. The less explanation there is on a given issue in a round, the more it feels like I'm forced to intervene in order to make my decision.

Don't ask me to disclose speaker points.

An aside on post-rounding: Don't. Barring a hard-line tournament policy preventing me from doing so, I will withhold submitting the ballot until after I've announced my decision and given a brief RFD. Beyond the bad optics of unsporting conduct, I am diagnosed with general anxiety disorder as well as PTSD and will, in this instance, use speaker points as a deterrent to debaters or coaches aggravating my mental health condition. Feel free to ask questions, just act like you're speaking to another human being and not berating a computer with a software glitch. The next debater that doesn't heed this warning will get a 25. The next coach who doesn't heed this warning will cause their students in the debate round to receive a maximum of 25 speaker points, possibly less depending on how much of the round the coach actually watched. I won't tell you this is happening either, you can figure it out on your cume sheet. I will simply pack up my things and then leave, offering to provide the other team feedback in a safer area. Take your attitude to Peewee Football where it belongs.

If you've gotten this far into reading my philosophy I want to reward your attempts to understand and adapt to your critics. Tell me that my cat Moe is the most adorable cat this side of the galaxy and I'll give you .4 extra speaker points the first time I judge you.

Policy

Folks, when I debated I read big-stick policy affs with heg and econ impacts, soft-left critical affs, personal narratives, bizarre postmodern kritiks, process cps w/ politics, word PICs, functional PICs, and probably some other nonsense too. I have a tremendous amount of respect for debaters who can be flexible, particularly as the activity has seemed to become more polarized. Read whatever arguments you want to read. Just be clear and impact them back to the debate.

Ok, there is one thing - terrorism impacts. Not only are most of these authors anti-Arab and/or Islamophobic racists, or just xenophobes period, but I just personally have always found these arguments comically bad. You can read these still if you really want and truly have nothing else, or you think you have a persuasive scenario, but if I have to actually vote for it as an impact scenario it's probably going to be a low point win. In seven years of judging I've not once voted on a terrorism impact in any debate event, but I have had to dock speaker points for the hateful garbage that comes out of some people's mouths while defending them.

Yeah, and framework. If you are aff answering a K, I'm probably going to be unpersuaded by the argument that Ks are cheating. I do think it is reasonable for the aff to argue that they get to weigh their 1AC (expect negative push back with sequencing arguments of course). If you are neg vs. a K aff there's definitely a spectrum of what 1ACs framework is a more persuasive argument to me on. Affs should probably still have to relate to the topic - what "relating to the topic" means is something up for debate if the question is raised. 1ACs should have some sort of advocacy statement, whether it needs to be a USfg backed plan or something broader is up for debate... Beyond those two qualifiers, everything is fair game.

**ONE OTHER THING (POST-MEADOWS 2019):**

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the butchered articulations of Afropessimism positions (mainly) by white debaters. I'm going to start tanking the speaker points of debaters who read arguments like Afropessimism or settler colonialism alongside ideologically inconsistent negative strategies. Defenses of conditionality do not absolve debaters of the inconsistencies between the worldviews that they forward within debate rounds. I voted down a fairly talented team at Meadows who never grappled with how their reading of a contradicting no root cause argument on-case was spun as proof that the negative's endorsement of Wilderson's ideology was only as a fungible means to an end of winning debate rounds, turning alt solvency. If a central component of your argument is that black bodies are rendered fungible for the benefit of others within civil society what the hell does it say that you'd read this argument alongside framework (which I've seen done repeatedly) or alongside case arguments which assert the logic of otherization lacks a root cause? If you are debating a team who makes a sweeping ontological or epistemic critique like one of these alongside milquetoast policy positions or other contradictory arguments please call it out. Not only will you likely have a very easy decision in your favor but I will reward your speaker points heavily. A CAVEAT: I think these arguments are less strong when applied to critiques like the Security K which don't call for an entire rewriting of the foundations of society and can be spun as a test of the affirmative's worldview for political decisionmaking. Basically, if your criticism would call for a fundamental restructuring of human relations or total opposition to engagement through any status quo mechanism, be it institutional or interpersonal, you ought to commit to your worldview because to do otherwise likely reifies your arguments about the way movements aren't addressed within status quo politics and are footnoted, ignored, or perverted for the benefit of the ruling class.

"T isn't genocide" is both a strawman and incomplete argument. When I hear those words in a debate round my mental image is of the speaker plugging their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA." Further, a critique of T is not an RVI, and your generic "T is not an RVI" block is more than likely to be insufficient to answer an actual criticism of topicality. If debate is a game does that change the scope or context of any silencing/exclusion that may occur? Do games function without limits? Maybe think about these questions when formulating your response.

I want to be a part of the email chain for the round, ask me for my email before the debate.

Do not remove card taglines or plan/counterplan texts from your speech documents.

I do not open speech documents during the debate. My flow will be based entirely off of what I can understand being said/argued by both teams during their speech time (no 30 second grace period, my pen/typing stops when the timer goes off).

I may look at a few cards after the round is over, especially if the evidence in question is heavily contested or cited by one or both teams. In general, the more cards I need to personally read to decide the debate, the more I feel like I'm being forced to intervene.

Don't steal prep time holy hell people. Time used to delete analytics from your speech document is prep time. If an attempt to send the file out within 10 seconds of the words "stop prep" being said is not clearly made, the speaking team's prep time restarts. Take your hands off of your keyboards during dead time before speeches, unless you are pulling up the current speech document. Anything else is prep. Obviously I can't track the milliseconds of your prep time, so I'll dock your speaker points instead if it becomes a consistent issue.

If you speed through your theory blocks, T argument, or an important overview like a card I'm gonna absorb less of it. I'll still be able to write down your arguments, but (particularly for theory, T, and FW debates) I might miss a quick analytic, organize it differently from what you intended, or just think about it less. I'm gonna emphasize this further - your judges do not hear every word you say, stop taking for granted that you have your blocks prewritten in front of you and SLOW DOWN (especially if you're the type of debater to take your analytic blocks out of your speech doc - be willing to accept the negative externalities that result).

"Judge kick" with advocacies: The negative is obligated to tell me if I should view the status quo as a secondary option going into the 2NR/2AR. Any interpretation of this issue, absent debaters explicitly clarifying it themselves in-round, requires an amount of judge intervention to resolve. In those instances, I conclude that the path of least intervention is to assume that the negative is solely defending the world they've explicitly presented to me in the final speech.

Don't waste time over-explaining your value if the debate isn't going to come down to it. Often times the value-criterion is where the real debate for how I should evaluate arguments in the round occurs.

The "number of contentions won" (actual phrase uttered by a debater I judged) is irrelevant in my decision calculus. I need to know why the arguments won matter underneath one, or both, frameworks presented in the round.

Don't run shoddy theory arguments, run ones you have a legitimate chance of winning. I think the time skew for the 1AR in LD has always been particularly egregious, and too many debaters rely on extraneous theory violations tripping up the 1AR to win their rounds. I don't want to vote for these arguments. I will if you convincingly win them, but your speaker points will likely not be that high.

"Plans aren't allowed in LD debate" is not a complete argument. It is an interpretation for a theoretical violation which I expect debaters to justify with arguments for why that's a better world of LD debate.

Also, criterion shouldn't essentially be a plan or idea on how to attain your value. I'm not sure when this idea became common among more local debaters, but your criterion is supposed to be an evaluative lens for me to judge the arguments presented to me in the round and their impact.

Rashed Islam University of California, Berkeley None

Kyle Jablon Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate 7 rounds None

Rory Jacobson University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Abhishek Jain Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Bailey Janisch Bingham 5 rounds None

Noreen Javed University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds None

Miriam Javier Granite Bay High School 3 rounds None

Ashutosh Jog Dougherty Valley HS 7 rounds None

Bob Kadie Miramonte 3 rounds None

Pamudh Kariyawasam Brentwood 7 rounds None

Alex Kennedy Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 20, 2017 at 7:39 AM PDT

10/20/17 I did LD in high school and coached LD at Palo Alto High School while I was a student at Stanford. Since graduating, I've worked at various legal and educational nonprofits, including my current role as the Director of Programs at Silicon Valley Urban Debate League. Although I competed mostly on the national circuit, and qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years, I have never competed in or coached policy, and as such I'll expect your standards and voters on any T or theory arguments to be **crystal** clear.

The following is pasted from my existing judge philosophy on judging LD, and holds true for my adjudication of policy rounds as well:

I'm ok voting on just about any type of argument as long as it's warranted and its relevance to the ballot is explained. The best way to win my ballot is to be comparative and to prioritize arguments for me. Your arguments on weighing, decision calculus, etc. should write the ballot for my decision. Absent such explanation, I'll have to determine for myself how arguments interact. This comparison should not be entirely new in your last speech; if your argument was blippy/totally unwarranted the first time around, I probably won't buy huge new impacts that crop up in later speeches. That said, I would encourage you to use embedded clash and comparison of multiple arguments to be smart and efficient. Weigh early and often.

I'm fine with critical arguments, provided they are well explained in terms of the link story and the ballot, and I'll vote on both prefiat and postfiat impacts (with the same requirements for critical args in general). If you're making arguments that appeal to my role or opinion as the judge, you should be extremely clear on how and why I evaluate the round they way you're asking me to.

I'm also fine with theory, though like any other argument it needs to be properly warranted and impacted. I default to a competing interps view of theory, though I'll look to reasonability arguments if they are well-developed and clearly won. If you run bad theory and/or clearly use it as a poor strategic ploy your speaks will definitely suffer.

Please only go as fast as you can be clear. I'm cool with most speeds so long as you are still clear, and I'll let you know once (twice if you're especially bad) if I need you to be clearer. Actually slow down and enunciate for card names, as well as tags and signposting. If you're you reading Deleuze and Guattari or something equivalently dense, you should probably slow down a notch or two for the substance of your case too.

For good speaks, make smart arguments and make them well, employ good strategy, and don't act like a jerk in CX.

If you've got any other questions just let me know before the round.

Shubhavalli Kestur Leland High School 4 rounds

Yasir Khan University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Elizabeth Kim Sierra Canyon School 3 rounds None

Steve Knell Rowland Hall 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 29, 2022 at 1:27 PM PDT

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Michael Kohm Monta Vista High School 7 rounds None

Jordan Lamothe Presentation High School 4 rounds None

Kenneth Laverty University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 17, 2014 at 12:28 AM PDT

Affiliations: James C. Enochs High School (graduated 2013), Debater with the University of Nevada Parliamentary Debate Team (2013-present)

I’m a first year debater at the University of Nevada. I debated for two years in high school in LD but dabbled in every form of debate California has to offer (in the YFL). I went to state in California during my senior year for LD and OA. I usually judge in Reno at the tournaments there. As a debater now, I run policy arguments at every chance available. Im also not a fan of just hearing taglines with backfilling later. In general, being blippy does no good in front of me. I prefer one substantive argument over multiple underdeveloped ones. I also will prefer well warranted and intuitive arguments over carded ones. I am an evaluator of evidence and I do not think that simply because you have a card from someone you think is important, that you should instantly win. 4 poor cards do not beat 1 that is simply superior.

Structure: I would prefer that you clearly tell me where you are on an argument. So, tell me when you are on uniqueness, or the links, or the impacts. It makes it easier for me to understand the story of your advantage or disadvantage. On Ks, I like to have the specific links labeled/numbered.

Humor: In general, I also like to be entertained. If you are going to have a heavy debate, I welcome the opportunity to lighten the mood with comedic moments.

Framework: I would prefer post-fiat policy-making as a framework, but if you really want me to do something else, go for it. I will go off the framework provided to me.

Speed: I am relatively new to the practice of speed. I can hang to some degree, but do not assume that I will be able to flow every single one of your arguments if you go as fast as possible and are blippy. Slow down on important stuff that you don’t want me to miss. Also, trying to go faster than you really can, and stammering/stumbling through, annoys me. I am down for speed, just do it well in front of me please. Also, signposting is great. You should do it.

T and theory: I see T as a means for protecting yourself in a round. I look for coherent standards and actual clash on competing interpretation/competing standards debate. I don’t like the idea of T being used as a time suck, so don’t assume that I will vote on a 20 second T shell that had no effort in it. If you think you need that T vote, put the time in to make it substantive. I see theory the same way. I only vote on articulated abuse.

Disads: I like them. However, not all disads are created equal. I love well warranted disads. The more specific you are with them, the happier I am. I don’t want to hear a tics scenario that just says the plan makes the GOP mad. I want specific coalitions that are against the plan. I want to hear about how the internal link story. Without an internal link story that is well developed, you are behind in my eyes.

C/Ps: I like them. I will also listen to your theory behind them if it is substantive. Please, no condition counter plans. I think they are very abusive and will vote on that theory.

Ks: Be careful. I like critical thoughts but I am not kind to generic Ks. I look for specific links that are substantive. Without such, you are only putting yourself farther behind on an uphill battle. Also, don’t make these come off as personal attacks against the other team. Alt should solve.

Performance & K-Affs: Don’t do it in front of me. Debate is the wrong format as far as I’m concerned. I think that it is your job to be on topic. I’m all about predictable burdens and methods of refutation. Don’t skew your opponents out of the round by running something that removes that.

Cross-x: Make it substantive. I really don’t like it when people ask for elements of the other team’s case because they can’t flow. I feel like that is a waste of time and would prefer that you be asking good questions.

Rebuttals: Explain to me exactly what the most important arguments are in the round. Don’t just give me a tagline and expect me to work for you. Contextualize everything. Do impact calc.

For LD:

I think there are two levels to every LD debate.

1. We must chose the superior value.

2. Then we chose the winner of the round based on which case best achieves that value. You can lose the value/value criterion debate, but that does not mean you lose the round. The best LD debaters realize this is a reality in front of me and adapt accordingly.

Erik Legried Brentwood 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM MDT

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

Elana Leone Palo Alto High School 7 rounds None

Liz Letak West High School 7 rounds None

Jiang Li Monta Vista High School 4 rounds None

Steven Lin Brentwood 7 rounds None

Kelsey Liu Brentwood 7 rounds None

Terrence Lonam Lake Highland 6 rounds

Pablo Lopez University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Ashley Lovell The Meadows School 7 rounds None

Scott Lunine San Marino High School 6 rounds

Greg Malis Isidore Newman School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Anil Malkani Mission San Jose 7 rounds None

Chat Malladi Harker School 7 rounds None

Sohail Mallick Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Alex Martel Harker School 7 rounds None

Joshua Martin University of California, Berkeley

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:01 AM EDT

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Sam Mathews Kent Denver 4 rounds None

Nicole McCaffrey Evergreen 3 rounds None

Meghan McDonagh Centennial High School 7 rounds

Jonathan McGuire University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Morgan McNally San Marino High School 6 rounds None

Mark Middleton West High School 7 rounds None

Joan Miller Centennial High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 12:15 PM MDT

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

Joshua Mills Elko High School Forensics 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 11, 2020 at 3:12 AM +0430

Hi my name is Josh,

Background:

I have 6 years of Debate Experience I debated all 4 years of high school and two years in College. I've attended nationals 4 times, twice in college and twice in high school. I definitely realize how important this event is to many of you and I'll do my best to be a great judge. I have had in the past apathetic judges even at the national level which was kind of hurtful for me to see because of how much I cared and the level of effort I personally put into debate. Rest assured, I want to make sure you have better judges who care more about their decisions than I sometimes had. Starting with being a good judge myself.

Paradigm/Preferences Quick version

I try to be as close to a blank slate as possible, but I also realize we all have personal biases and outside information that we know, rather than pretending I can be completely blank I try to recognize the biases that I might bring into the room with me and account for them as best I can to be a fair and impartial judge.

I am experienced with more progressive debate styles and arguments. I am more than open to seeing them at this tournament. That said it has been a while since I've flowed a proper spread and would likely not be able to understand you at full speed if spreading is a staple for your debate style.

~~ Long Version

I believe the affirmative should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical.

Negative, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both

I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc.

Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially.

I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard.

Let me know if you have any specific questions or concerns!

Nick Montecalvo Cypress Bay High School 7 rounds

Paul Montreuil Centennial High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 19, 2018 at 8:47 PM UTC

3 Years debating at Idaho State 1 Year at UNI 4 Years judging college debate
13 Years judging high school debate
My favorite debaters (in no particular order)- Michael Klinger, Jessica Yeats, Stephen Weil, Sunil Pai and Kade Olsen My favorite judges (in no particular order)- Steve Pointer, Mike Hester, Adam Symonds and Aimi Hamraie
My favorite strategy for pretty much any argument is impact turning. You should probably do what you do best though.
I’m very strict about clarity and the highlighting of evidence. If you have an off case arg or advantage that takes less than a minute to read you should probably save it for another critic.
Topicality- Explanations of aff and neg ground under your interpretation goes a long way. I’m persuaded more than most by reasonability arguments.
DA’s- Defense is underrated. Please highlight enough of your ev to make an actual argument. Remember what I said about impact turning.
CP’s- I lean affirmative on most theory questions.
K’s- The key to winning these debates, regardless of side, is to talk about the aff. Don’t assume I’ve read the same literature you have so keep the jargon to a minimum. In most K debates I’ve seen there isn’t enough discussion of the alternative for my liking.
Framework- I’m one of the sick few that enjoy these arguments. A clear framework for evaluating impacts is a necessity for any argument. Whether you’re down with traditional or non-traditional frameworks you should make these arguments in front of me.
I’m not sure I can be offended and I respect boldness. I’m confused by the widespread belief that people somehow have a right to not be offended.
Oh and paperless teams- don't give the other team a document with cards you aren't going to read. If you realize you have to skip some cards to cover tell them exactly how many cards you are skipping then take prep (your own) to delete them from their document before the next cx starts.
Good luck to all. Any questions please ask. I promise to work hard and I respect you for participating in this intense competition.

A.J. Moorehead Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds

Updated Nov 2013 at the Hollywood Invitational

I generally disclose if you want me to. Same with speaks. The exception is if you just annihilated a strug in front of his family, then I might be a bit bashful about recounting the carnage in front of them. In any case, do not try and goad me into disclosing.

I've judged a non-trivial but non-staggering amount of bid tournaments (30?) and both college parliament nationals over the last few years. I have an MA in rhetoric and critical theory and was an engineer before that so if your argument makes sense I will understand it. That said, you still have to conduct the round as if you actually want me to "learn" your case/evidence - you've read it; I have not.

My default is to evaluate arguments impacted to whatever standard you've chosen to use. I don't flow cross-ex, so re-state anything useful that happened in that time.

Important: I have a background in public speaking and performance so I am more susceptible than most to a well-executed perceptual debate. Be generous yet fearless in cross-ex and really sell your rebuttal speeches. It matters. (Hint: leaning on phrases like "This is going to be damning" or "My opponent makes a HUGE MISTAKE" are not very compelling to me.)

Don't spread your opponent out of the round because not everyone went to camp and good debate schools are hard to come by. I don't care how fast you go if your opponent can spread too (ask your opponent) but assume I will hear less than you want me to if you go fast. Call it 20% less. BE VERY CLEAR AND SLIGHTLY SLOWER ON TAGLINES, AUTHORS AND WARRANTS. This makes them very likely to show up on the flow. I will not yell "Clear!" any more than I will yell "I don't quite understand this argument!"

Two of your speeches should end with a numbered list of reasons why you are winning. Negs, both speeches should end this way.

I always prefer creativity, originality and depth of argument over spreading and feverish flow-coverage. I am not afraid to give you speaks below 25, I just rarely see someone that unprepared or rude. The frequency with which 30s are given shocks me.

All that said, I have no agenda. It is YOUR debate. If you are hard-working and quick-thinking I want you to do well! Be polite and argue in a way and for a position that I want to vote for!

Naemah Morris Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

William Morrow Brentwood 7 rounds

Rohit Mukherjee Bellarmine College Preparatory 7 rounds None

Srinidhi Muppalla University of California, Berkeley

John Murphy Encinitas Independent 7 rounds None

Andrew Nam Oxford Academy 7 rounds None

Todd Newkirk Lynbrook HS 7 rounds None

Rebar Niemi University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 21, 2014 at 12:17 PM PDT

THIS PARADIGM IS UPDATED FOR TOC 2014

FOR EXTRA INCOMPREHENSION, JUST READ THE BOLDED STUFF.

People often claim to have read my paradigm. Then they debate in front of me and I see that they have either ignored it (which is perfectly fine) or have very poor reading comprehension. As a general note: I would prefer that you do something you're comfortable with as opposed to something you'd think I'd like, but I like to see debaters take risks and do innovative things - so do what you will.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT CONSTRUCTING A MONOLITHIC NOTION OF WHAT DEBATE SHOULD BE OR CAN DO IS RIDICULOUS AND I AM WILLING TO TOLERATE NEARLY ANY METHOD OR TECHNIQUE OF DEBATING WITH A FEW CAVEATS:

1. I've long enjoyed many strategies in debate that are tools to deceive and dominate. I have lost a lot of interest or enjoyment of them. This would include storms of nibs, a prioris, theory, "triggers," arguments via definition, skep, and other results-focused approaches to debating. Sometimes these can be interesting. By and large they are not interesting to watch or judge, and increasingly I feel that there are better styles of argument to engage in.
2. I think debate needs new methods and voices far more than it needs more of the same. I like and encourage "risks" and unique styles of debate. I don't think they're risky.
3. I would basically at this point rather just judge performance and K debates with the occasional philosophy/framework debate thrown in, but that just is my honest preference for my fave kinds of debate. If you don't want to/can't give me that, I will settle for Plan/CP/DA stuff or like Kant. Honestly I'm good at judging Kant even tho I ain't that into him.

In the past I have been a very good judge for:

Framework Debates
Heavy phil
K Debates
Performance
Plan/DA/CP debates

Some people thought I was a very good theory judge, others probably not.

To sum up my paradigm in two words: "Least Intervention"

Personal Style Point/Rough Defaults/Misc.

1. The thing about prep: basically its a matter of - if you misuse prep time in my subjective perspective (waste it pulling blocks, or generally use a bunch and then make like 3 responses that are original and not even give an overview or any weighing) I will give you worse speaks because bad debaters waste prep and I'm trying to train you for some bizarre reason. ALSO - THE LESS PREP YOU USE PERIOD, THE MORE I WILL BE IMPRESSED. To sum up my views: using lots or all of your prep is absolutely fine, but actually use it effectively. You will only improve you speaks and my perception of your skill by using less prep and skill being effective.
2. If forced to intervene, I typically intervene for the aff before the neg, for strength of link over magnitude of impact, on framework before offense, and towards better argument interaction over unexplained extensions. THIS LIST IS NOT IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE - IT VARIES ROUND TO ROUND BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS I LOOK FOR.
3. I think layering and sequencing are probably some of the most important things to do. Big fan of well structured overviews.

NOTES ON THEORY B/C PEOPLE ALWAYS WANNA B KNOWING
1. Theory is comparison of offense to interpretations. I would prefer theory debates that are ways of getting to substance or pointing out something that stops us from getting to substance rather than ways of getting rid of substance.
2. I have voted on theory a lot. That said, I try not to artificially resolve theory debates and I am unsatisfied by tiny amounts of offense to barely defensible interpretations.
3. My default is text of interp matters. You should be held accountable for the text. I am sympathetic to semantic I meets for this reason. I am open to arguments against these things, but would probably need to have them made in round to evaluate that way.
4. Things I think theory should not be run against but will grudgingly accept listening to a theory debate on if you really deem it necessary: single side-constraint neg strategies that are like a deont nc plus turns (If you can't beat that strategy straight up, you should throw your ac out), affs that use a skeptical premise to found a positive normative system but do not access skepticism, various critical negative strategies that are mistakenly characterized as "skep or nibs or both"
5. Key things I like: weighing, offense, not trying to be sleaze, weighing, offense

LD DEBATE PARADIGM:
-The first place I start is that I care about the act of judging. I care because I enjoyed debating in front of judges who cared, and because I don't know how to not care about debate. I want you to care about the debates you have, because they might just be debates, but you're doing them and spending time/money on it, or someone is, right?
-I'M HERE FOR YOU, YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR ME.
-Any type or style of argument is acceptable and nothing is off limits in front of me, but I want you to do it well and in a manner that shows you care and that I should care.
-Speed is not an issue, but clarity and structure are issues.
-You are free to argue any type of paradigmatic or theoretical claim you wish, but you cannot sign my ballot. It is only under the most dire of circumstances (which I have not encountered yet) that I will resort to full intervention that costs you the ballot. I will definitely be forced to intervene on micro-issues if you do not debate well. Intervention is required when debaters do not fully explicate their arguments or compare them directly, which I expect you to do.
-Some level of intervention is inevitable in every round - I try to minimize it by going off what you give me, not what I think.
-If forced to intervene, I typically intervene for the aff before the neg, for strength of link over magnitude of impact, on framework before offense, and towards better argument interaction over unexplained extensions.
-I think you need to extend and impact arguments and if you can't do this then you will lose unless your opponent also cannot do this at which point I will be forced to intervene
-Capital T truth is impossible, but you can claim and win truth-testing. In mind mind debate will always be the manufacturing of advantages to one contingent truth against other contingent truths.
-No debate argument is perfect, no debate argument could possibly ever be fully complete, no link chain ever ends, very few things have exactly "true" and "right" answers.
-A debate argument functions because we believe it so and because we convince others through discourse that it is so. Your object as debaters is to meet the explanatory burden of the arguments you select and convince me to care about their function.

LD SPEAKS PARADIGM:
I have a fairly normal speaks range. I do think that when you're a bad speaker, its typically your own fault and you should be punished for it. If I could assign you reading, I would, because reading makes people better speakers and no one reads these days. If you try and show me you've tried, it will be hard to get that low of speaks in front of me.

Communal inflation initially made me a member of the median group of judges but I might be a slight outlier on the lower end now. I believe you can get a 30 without being a TOC level debater. I believe each debater needs to do different contextual things to get a 30, and so there is no master standard. I have likes and dislikes - some of them are enumerated in this paradigm, but as a general rule of thumb: your arguments should be intelligent, strategic, and most importantly yours. You just can't get a 30 in front of me doing what everyone else is doing. If I think you present me with a unique and impressive performance that combines skill, intelligent preparation, and in-round cunning, you will get high speaks. You can't get a 30 if your analysis is stupid, if you don't fully extend things/force me to do work for you, if you act like a brat, etc. If you win and are an outrounds worthy competitor but nothing more, you'll probably get a 28.5 in front of me.

Finally, YES STRUCTURAL PAUSES, YES PAUSES BEFORE AND AFTER AUTHORS, YES SLOWER TAGS/ANALYTICS, NO YOU CAN'T GET A 30 JUST BEING FAST, START SLOW AND GET FASTER, IF YOU USE TOO MUCH PREP AS THE NEGATIVE, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST THE LEAD.

Cory Nims University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM MST

My favorite debates are ones in which the affirmative defends a fiatted plan text defending the resolution and the negative defends the status quo or a competitive policy option. You are of course open to approach the resolution in whatever way you wish as long as you justify it but you should support/be germane to the topic. Non-topical or anti-topical affs will be hard sells in front of me.

I’m compelled by terminal defense but I am more likely to vote one way or another if I have some risk of offensive.

Speed/spreading should never be used as a tool of exclusion so while I think speed bad arguments tend to be silly if you are asked to slow down you should or I’ll be pretty open to them. I will also add a note that I have been out of the activity for 2 years now and I have not kept up listening to speed. I’m confident that I can keep up but please don’t sacrifice clarity in the name of speed.

I view topicality as a search for the best interpretation of the topic and whether or not the affirmative meets that, it’s up to the debaters to tell me which standards are the most important and why I should prefer them. That being said I don’t think that abuse is necessary for me to vote but it certainly can be a compelling reason. T is always apriori voter unless I hear a compelling reason why it shouldn’t be and RVI’s are not the way to convince me. I’ll vote for theory arguments as long as they are justified, generally condo is probably a good thing but multiple conditional advocacies are probably bad for debate.

Impact prioritization is the most important thing to do in rebuttal speeches, tell me where you want me to vote and why it matters. I’ve seen many times where the rebuttal will tell me that they have won an argument and expect me to contextualize how it plays into the debate. You are free to roll the dice and see if I agree with you absent instruction.

Courtney Nunley Northland Christian School 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Marc O'Krent Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds

Michael Overing Loyola High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM PDT

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Julius Pak Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds None

Em Parker University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM MST

A little background:

I graduated from Chico State in May 2013, where I debated for 3 years and studied International Relations. I am currently working as an assistant coach for ASU and Phoenix Country Day School. Given that I am a new judge, I will likely have to update it regularly as my approach to judging changes.

As a debater, I ran almost exclusively heg & politics & framework & the like; HOWEVER – that does not mean that I am automatically predisposed to vote against different kinds of arguments. The drawback here is that I am significantly less familiar with the literature, particularly "high theory" literature (such as Baudrillard), although my interest in it has grown over time.

That being said, I will address important questions here, as they arise:

CPs - I really love specific CP's that make a concerted/evidenced attempt to subsume some specific aspect of the aff. Like, if you go and cut one of your opponent's solvency articles and made a CP out of it, I'm gonna think that you're at least relatively badass.

Disads - I love them, but think it's kind of silly that they've turned into a "who can read more cards" contest. I think smart analytical arguments are incredibly valuable/underrated and, although I do not read evidence if I can manage, would prefer to hear two pieces of wonderfully specific & warranted link evidence than six cards with one word in reference to the aff somewhere at the bottom.

Framework & Topicality – To me, this is simply/should be questions of what we should do when we enter a debate round, why that version of the activity is a good one, and how your methodology is the most effective/productive. If you are able to answer those questions, you’re in a good position. I will not on face reject a non-topical affirmative, but for goodness’ sakes, please have an answer to topical version of the aff. Topicality requires deep and warranted explanation and I am definitely not familiar enough with your literature critiquing topicality itself to comfortably vote on it unless you really flesh it out. (What does the phrase "flesh it out" really even mean? Weird.)

I believe that the affirmative should defend a topical plan action taken by the “USFG,” however, I do not think this is the ONLY thing that the affirmative can or “should” necessarily be held to doing. If the affirmative chooses NOT to defend the implementation of a topical plan, they must also explain to me how voting aff achieves something in the context of your arguments (i.e. an explicit explanation of how my ballot will do anything besides signify the winner and loser to the tabroom).

If a negative team reads topicality or framework against a non-topical affirmative, there MUST BE SOME ENGAGEMENT of the affirmative’s argument in order for me to justify voting neg… I believe that topicality is an a-priori issue and comes first in almost every instance, and I absolutely do not think that reading topicality is wrong or EVER a reason to vote against the negative (unless it’s explicitly offensive, of course); however, if the affirmative is making arguments about why their ethics precede topicality or something of the like, the negative will not be able to win simply BECAUSE they ran topicality.

Other things that are still quite important:

For better or worse, I am NOT going to call for a bunch of evidence after the round unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. My reasoning for this is simply that, given my inexperience judging, I want to avoid getting in the habit of potentially recreating different aspects of the debate in my mind. If a piece/pieces of evidence are serious points of contention in the debate and/or will have significant bearing on my decision, then I may call for them, but as of now that will be limited. If you want me to call for something you should make a big deal about it/why it would be important for me to do so in your speeches.

I really enjoy a hefty & comparative case debate in the block.

If you are rude to your opponent in cross ex, I will be so distracted by your attitude that I will probably not want to listen to your answers or give you good speaker points. People who make smart arguments & are KIND to their partner/opponents will get really good speaker points... as far as I am concerned, that's an important indicator of how speaker points should be distributed. In light of the community-wide discussion of speaker point distribution, I will also just say that I am still trying to figure out the way that I deal with these.

If you want to flag an argument as important (place emphasis on it, ask me to call for it, or if it’s something you’re going to be asking me about after the round) then you should do so explicitly. It's really strange to me that debaters say things like, "but what about when I said XYZ?" because, quite frankly, it almost always makes more sense/is more substantively articulated when you describe it after the round than it is in the speeches, and that's what I'm evaluating, so...

Prep time ends when you take your flash drive out of the computer. I will probably be lenient for novices or during paperless blunders but if I get the feeling that something shady is happening I will start prep.

I have recently learned that I think Wipe Out is a very frustrating argument.

Regarding discussions of sexual violence, I am not comfortable with extremely graphic imagery. My evaluation of such arguments are no different from any other, but explicit descriptions are something that I would appreciate being slightly moderated in front of me. Thank you.

Jose Pelcastre Mission San Jose 7 rounds None

Konstantine Piterman Christopher Columbus 7 rounds None

Tom Placido FSHA (Flintridge) 7 rounds None

Robert Prichard Granite Bay High School 3 rounds

Manisha Priyadarshini University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Emma Purvance Juan Diego Catholic 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 6, 2014 at 6:28 AM EDT

Yo, my history with debate is two years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school and two years coaching Lincoln-Douglas for Juan Diego Catholic High School (ongoing).

Judging

As a judge my job is decide who did the better job of debating, not who conformed to my opinions/preferences best. I will not let personal beliefs decide the outcome of the round as it is not my job to tell you what arguments you should be making - simply to look for who is arguing the best.
- Though in RFD I will mention tactics I think may have worked better, although they did not sway the ballot.
I prefer progressive cases. PICs, Kirtks, Counter Plans, you name it.
I am accepting of traditional cases.

Basically run whatever argument you want as long as you can pull it off.

Please please please have concise arguments. I want a claim, a warrant, and an implication.
Extend with an argument. Just naming cards will get you nowhere, as I while I am attentive to taglines, you will lose me when you ask me to extend your (for example) "Marks card" in a rebuttal, but do not give the warrant behind the card. Chances are I wont know what you're talking about and it wont end up on the flow.
Impact calculus is something I feel is neglected in LD. It shouldn't be.
If you drop an argument that's that. Same goes for bringing up new arguments in rebuttals. While I believe it is the job of your opponent to point this out, I will not turn a blind eye if they don't.
I like a clear cut, line by line debate, as that is how I evaluate the rounds. Make it easy for me to flow and sign the ballot. Signpost clearly and provide offtime roadmaps.
Flex prep is cool with me.
I don't flow CX.
Use all of your speech time and use it wisely to help construct your argument.
Speak as fast as you want - but if you are not clear, I wont flow. It is your job as a debater to know your limits when in comes to speaking clearly AND speedily. I will shout clear if asked to before rounds.
Please flash cases before hand - don't waste prep time or my time. This goes to say that you should be able to present your opponent with your case or clarification when needed, even if you're paper debating.
I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time and time in general. I will give time signals only if asked.
Be polite in round - be passionate and aggressive and for all means please be argumentative, but don't be an ass.
I do not tolerate gendered language in round. You'll loose speaks, and if I find it particularly offensive, I will drop you like a hot potato.

Tell me you're "picking up Mary's Tamales" before round and I'll give you .5 bonus speaker points.

I like puns.

Emily Purvis Presentation High School 7 rounds None

Sujatha Rajagopalan Dougherty Valley HS 7 rounds None

Joshua robinson University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Joseph Rodgers University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Jackie Rossiter Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Tim Ruehle Los Altos High School 4 rounds None

Tiffany Sam Saint Francis High School 5 rounds None

Jasmine Sanghvi Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Jennie Savage Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Shivanand Sawant Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Mimi Sergent-Leventhal University of California, Berkeley

Background: I debated at Edina High School in Minnesota and UC Berkeley. While debating, I won the Harvard Costume Contest twice, placed third once, and won the University of Minnesota Debate No Shave November contest while I was still in high school. So yes, I am qualified to judge your debate.

I'll work hard to evaluate the round based only on the arguments presented. Everything below should be considered a bias that can be overridden through good debating.

**update for Fullerton 2017: Before this tournament, I have judged zero debates on the college topic.

Top level:
- Absolute defense is possible

- I will not default to calling cards - this is a response to a team challenging the quality of evidence or my inability to resolve an argument without looking at them

- status quo > aff > 2NR advocacy is a reason to vote aff

- I default to rejecting the argument on theory questions

- Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant (but clarity determines whether I evaluate them in the first place)

- I will not evaluate arguments that are new in the 2AR

- High school only: I really hate all the time wasting that happens in these debates - please take the time before the debate to set up the email chain, the podium, whatever. As part of this, I have a very strong preference for 8 minutes of prep rather than 10.

Misc. thoughts about different types of arguments:

Theory/Topicality:
I'm consistently confused by what exactly teams mean by reasonability so if you're going for it please take time to explain.

Counterplans:
CPs that do the entirety of the aff/result in the entirety of the aff through changing the process (like recommendations CPs) are likely not competitive.

Ks:
I'm not very compelled by role of the ballot claims when distinct from larger framework type arguments.

Advantages/Disadvantages:
These are poorly constructed and I am very compelled by people pointing that out.

Affs that don't defend the resolution:
I would have a difficult time voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the resolution if framework were competently extended by the neg.

Misc:
- The one exception to "my biases can be overridden" is being a jerk - please don't be mean!

Shahbaz Shaikh Harker School 7 rounds

James Sharp Arcadia High School 6 rounds None

Kwang Shin Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Richard Shmikler Brentwood 1 rounds

Alex Smith Cypress Bay High School 8 rounds None

Divakar Somanchi Granite Bay High School 3 rounds None

John Spurlock University of California, Berkeley

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM PDT

hey all, i'm john spurlock. i debated for ckm for four years and currently debate for uc berkeley. when i used to do prefs, i was looking to answer four questions about the judge, so i'm just going to ask and answer those four questions as best i can.

1. is this person qualified/experienced enough to judge my debate?
well this is up to you, but i've been in policy debate for five years and had a lot of rounds at high levels of competition. i have some solid experience, and i've thought about debate a lot. i can't guarantee that i am qualified or experienced enough to judge your debate, but i can assure you that i feel qualified and experience enough to judge your debate (if that means anything lol).

2. is this person fine with the type(s) of argument(s) that i read in debates?
almost assuredly yes, i am convinced there is value in almost every form of debate and every type of argument. short of blatantly offensive argumentation, i am willing to consider almost every position that an aff or neg team might introduce. i've read framework, read no-plan affs, gone for politics, the k, etc. how you debate is so much more important than what you are debating about. i don't think there is any team that should not prefer me because of a certain type of argument that they make.

3. how does this person go about deciding debate rounds?
my process is slightly different for every debate that i judge, but i think there is an overall trend in my process based on the debates i've judged so far. i want to vote on arguments that are in the 2nr/2ar that i can easily trace back to previous neg/aff speeches. after the debate ends, i go through my flow and make a list of the key arguments from the 2nr and the 2ar in the debate. i put this on a separate sheet from my flow and try to assess (a) what i think the other team has said against this key claim, (b) whether it is new, (c) who wins this point, and (d) what impact this claim has on the debate. from here, i find myself able to render my decision.

4. what are the special things about this judge that i need to be aware of?
i'm probably like most judges in most ways, but i will include a few short facts here.
(a) i will probably flow on paper.
(b) i will almost assuredly not call for cards unless to settle a factual question. i will not call for cards in 98% of debates. i will not call for cards if you say "our evidence is good on this question." you need to explain to me why your evidence is good. you need to explain to me why their evidence is bad. i will not reward debaters who use cards as a substitute for argumentation.
(c) i need every speech that you give to be clear enough such that i can discern every word that you say. this includes the text of your cards. if i cannot understand you due to a prioritization of speed over clarity, you will suffer in speaker points and in terms of what arguments i count. this is related to point (b) in that the only way to prevent people from lying about the content of their cards is to be clear enough such that i can hear your cards.
(d) i place a high value on filtering and framing arguments in all styles of debates. your setting up a smart, strategic lens for how i evaluate the debate (and the impacts in the debate) can cause me to place a lesser weight on particular arguments even if you are not winning every single argument on the flow.

Anthony Sue Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Sunday Sunderlin Mountain View Idaho 7 rounds

Andrew Szeto San Marino High School 6 rounds

Neeta Tagare Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds

Brad Thew Central Valley High School 3 rounds None

Shin Tien Amador Valley High School 6 rounds None

Aaron Timmons Greenhill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 8:40 PM CDT

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Becca Traber Kinkaid School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 7:07 PM EDT

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Rajeev Udumula Leucadia Independent 7 rounds None

Maria Velazquez University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Kahler Verrill University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Mathew Wang University of California, Berkeley None

Stephanie Wang University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Melissa Weiner Bingham 5 rounds

Robert Whitson University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Michael Wimsatt University of California, Berkeley

Otto Wong University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds None

Jessica Xu Los Altos High School 7 rounds None

Andy Yuan University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds

Fiona Yuan University of California, Berkeley 7 rounds None

Sokena Zaidi Monta Vista High School 3 rounds None

Nate Zerbib-Berda Harvard-Westlake School 7 rounds

Ping Zhang Dougherty Valley HS 7 rounds None

Jian Zhao La Canada High School 4 rounds

Jeff Zheng Christopher Columbus 7 rounds None

Shoaib Ziaee Dougherty Valley HS 7 rounds None

Ivy Ziedrich Evergreen 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 29, 2016 at 2:57 PM PDT

TL;DR: I strongly prefer advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debates. I like theory, just run it well. I don't have a lot of experience with K debate and I don't enjoy it. I default to net bens whenever possible and will vote for most arguments if they're not offensive.

Experience: high school parli, NPDA at SRJC and UNR, NFA-LD at SRJC

General:

I vote on the flow and default to net benefits. I'll call clear and slow but if you don't listen and adapt, that's your issue. Please number and tag your arguments and generally provide structure to your speech and the debate. Temember proper structure of advantages/disadvantages (uniqueness/harms, links, internal links, impacts) as well as procedurals (interpretation, violation, standards, voters).

Preferences:

I really like advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debate! I prefer probability and timeframe over magnitude, but run whatever you can justify.

I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as it's coherent and justifiable.

On the K: I don't have much direct experience with K debate so don't go your top spead and speak like we're both deep in the lit! I'll vote for whatever I feel wins the round, but I don't enjoy the K because most rounds where I've picked one up in high school, it's been because the losing team was so confused, not because the argument was run well. If you insist on it in front of me, 1) listen to me when I call clear or slow and don't assume your opponent or I know your lit, 2) provide detailed links! 3) provide alt solvency that isn't total bs!! (because it almost always is) 4) have a reasonable framework, tell me what your opponent must do under that framework to win the ballot, and don't drop your framework if it's at all contested. If you're refuting the position then keep the above in mind too.

DEFEND THE RES ON AFF. If you don't defend the res as aff, you need to make it REALLY clear to me how your opponents have equal ground under your framework. If you have a truly legitimate problem with the resolution, then consult with your opponents in prep and choose a new one or something (? consult with the tournament. I'm not responsible for you taking that advice).

If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If you're conduct is horrendous enough I'll drop you, but I haven't had that happen before. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue.

In general, I encourage you to make the round entertaining and have fun.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime. If you can't find me, facebook me.

James Zucker Loyola High School 7 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The Cal Invitational at UC Berkeley

2014 — CA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

THIS PARADIGM IS UPDATED FOR TOC 2014

In the past I have been a very good judge for:

Framework Debates

Heavy phil

K Debates

Performance

Plan/DA/CP debates

Some people thought I was a very good theory judge, others probably not.

To sum up my paradigm in two words: "Least Intervention"

Personal Style Point/Rough Defaults/Misc.

Judges