FSU '25

Bio: Hi everyone, I'm Fabrice and I debated for Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida where I debated in LD for four years. The last two years of my debate career I spent debating on the national circuit where I broke at most of the tournaments that I attend during my Senior Year. Also, my pronouns are he/him/his, and my email is Fabriceetienne830@gmail.com for the email chain.

Basic Stuff:

1. I'm definitely Tech > Truth, which means I have no problem voting for any argument with a warrant and an implication, as long as it isn't repugnant and justifiably makes debate unsafe. If I find an argument to be nonsensical in a way then most likely it does not have a warrant behind it and has no implication in terms of who I voted for in the round.

2. Don't be blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. Also, if your opponent calls you out for one of the actions that are listed above I will drop you.

3. I do disclose speaks, but I will only disclose if both debaters are fine to have their speaker points disclose at the end of the round.

4. Please show up during the tech time the tournament has given. If you're ten minutes past the tech time then I will start docking speaks, so show up on time.

5. If you're debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower than usual. The whole point of debate is for people to build their knowledge of the world by learning new arguments from different competitors. This most likely won't happen if you're spreading as fast as can against someone that can't even pick up a word you're saying just because they have no experience in tech debate.

6. For online debate purposes, it is probably best that you record your speeches in case someone gets disconnected or cuts out for a split second during their speech.

Quick Pref Sheet:

K - 1

LARP/T - 2

Framework/ Theory - 3

Tricks - 4

General Stuff:

Ks/K affs: I spend the most time thinking about this type of debate and I feel most comfortable adjudicating it as well. Some authors that I am familiar with when it comes to K debates are Wilderson, Warren, Sexton, Hartman, Baudrillard, and Tuck and Yang. I also have a little bit of knowledge of Eldeman, Beradi, and Lacan. One thing I should note is that just because I like K debate does not mean I am going to hack for you if you read one in front of me, especially if you do not know what you are talking about. Also, I expect that your K has a link or links that are specific to the aff and the alternative should resolve it in some way. Another thing I would like to add is that I am not a big fan of big and long overviews, for that, it is probably better to line by line what is necessary. Now, in terms of K affs, I am fine with whatever you read since this was what I mostly read during my time on the circuit. My only concern with K affs is that you need to make sure that you link your aff to the resolution or why talking about the res is inherently bad. The last thing that I have to add is that if you are reading a non-T aff you need to answer the question of what you do? If that answer is not answered by the end of the 2AR I probably won't vote you up.

LARP (Policy Args): I am fine with LARP since it was the first type of debate that I started with once I was starting to debate on the circuit. Affs with a creative/unique plan text is always fun and if you have one, by all means, run it. The same goes for Neg and any unique CPs and DAs. In these kinds of debates, weighing is gonna be key in front of me.

T/Theory: Obviously if theory is called for because of in-round abuse, don't be afraid to run it. That being said, loading up on as many T shells as possible probably isn't the best strategy for me. This also applies to topicality as well. One thing that I would like to add is that I am not fond of voting for an RVI, but if it is warranted then it fair game.

Framework/Phil: I am fine with this as well even though I barely think about this type of debate at all. Some philosophers that I am familiar with are Kant, Levinas, Deleuze, and Lacan. Philosophers that are not the ones that I listed above might need a little bit more explanation when it comes to articulating their philosophy and how it relates to the res. Also, if this is your style then you need to win why your framework is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense or defense underneath that framing mechanism.

Tricks: This type of debate is probably my weakest place in terms of adjudicating, but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and reading tricks is your thing then just make sure you err on over-explanation and implicating whatever you are reading and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.

Performance: I am cool with this type of debate as well, but you need to make sure why your specific performance relates to the resolution in some way or why talking about the resolution is inherently bad in debate whether you are the affirmation or the negation.

Extra Stuff:

1. Since debate is online again for this season, it would probably be best to not speak as fast as you can from the jump. It would probably be best to start at 50% of your usual speed and then work your way up as the debate goes on so that I can get accustomed to your voice.

2. If you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afro pessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds or shows that you read the argument specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go.

3. If you are accused of an evidence ethics violation/clipping/cross-reading I will stop the debate and confirm with the accuser on whether they want to stake the round on the violation. After that, I will render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

4. I don’t mind you post rounding me, for that, I believe it makes judges learn sometimes too and it can be good to keep judges accountable. However, if you start to be aggressive while you are post rounding I will meet that energy as well.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

Greetings, I am a senior at LHS, I've debated LD for all 4 years here. Feel free to run any argument. Focus on being clear in speech and argumentation.

As for how I judge, nothing is off-limits, as of me judging while still attending, you're novices so you can run any argument as long as you understand it.

I don't have any biases but it should be known that I was primarily a K and tricks debater, most of the arguments being in relation to my black identity. This being stated I won't stretch the victory to someone who runs a K, especially if they don't understand their argument or if they lose the interaction. Tech > truth.

Send me the doc: 22Jalbert@lexingtonma.org

my name is anuka and I did debate for a couple years in high school. I did policy my freshman yr of high school and then switched over to ld my sophomore year. I debated a bit my sophomore year but debated like once or twice my junior year and then not at all senior year.

currently I am a freshman in college and am "part of" Columbia's debate team (aka I wanted the free sweatshirt lol)

im not very experienced in tech but will evaluate any arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained. take that as u will and plz dont read anything too crazy. if you have any questions email me

good luck

email chain: anuka.debate@gmail.com

Hey all, I am a graduated Varsity Public Forum debater so I have a solid amount of experience with all sorts of cases and debating styles so you won't have to worry too much about complex language or speed. That being said, I still am a public forum debater meaning that I do not have much experience with spreading in public forum. However, if you do have me in another form of debate, I can handle spreading and Ks as long as you break it down, please do not assume I know about the K you are running.

Flows: I'm not a huge fan of repeating yourself and over-explaining, so no need to get caught up or over do it. On top of that, I really appreciate good signposting and roadmapping so I can make as much of a lovely and organized flow possible. Also, I can identify when stuff is dropped usually, but, I still want you to show and explain why it is important that they dropped.

Speaking: Again, I've watched and participated in lots of debates, so no need to break things down too much. However--especially in the online world--spreading is usually lost on me, don't speak too fast and try to focus on diction. Coherency makes me a happy camper.

One additional nitpicky thing, I'm not super serious about strict debate formalities but I have one pet peeve regarding respectfulness. I, the judge am your audience so please do not address your opponents as "you", it can come off as hostile, please refer to them as "they" or "my opponents".

If you have me in Policy or LD, I have experience judging these types of debate so I do have a general knowledge of them but still, assume I am lay.

Thanks for reading and happy debating,

Aidan

They/Them/Theirs

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

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Hi,

I'm Filip. I debated for Lexington Highschool for 4 years in LD.

I qualified for the NDCA in my Junior Year.

My Email is fvrancic@umass.edu, please add me to the chain.

If it is 5 minutes before the round and you are just checking my paradigm there is TLDR at the bottom.

I am more or less open to any arguments you want to make provided they are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If any of these arguments are made I will stop the round immediately and give the debater who made that argument/statement a zero and L.

If you are a novice you can skip the following section(up to the evidence ethics section):

That said, my primary experience with debate has been Phil/Policy/Theory. If you are reading some super deep K lit, etc, expect to have to explain it a little better than you would have to to other judges.

Experience(1=I have a lot of experience, 5=I have very limited/no understanding):

Phil - 1

Larp - 1

Theory - 1

Tricks - 2/3

K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

I default to the following layering: Theory>ROB>Framing/Substance

I default to the following paradigm issues: Drop the Debater, Competing interps, No RVIs

Try to avoid making me use my defaults, even if they align with what you are trying to do in the round.

Evidence Ethics

I will also auto drop for an evidence ethics violation(This cuts both ways, if you stake the round on a violation and are wrong I will give you a loss, feel free to make it an argument in round if you are not sure). If you cannot get through the entirety of a card, please say 'cut the card here'. Do not change dates on evidence, plagiarize, etc. I won't be super strict about it, so just don't be blatant, and if you messed up and your opponent asks in CX, tell the truth.

Other important stuff:

CX is binding, anything you say in CX is taken as truth in the round.

Do make arguments that are creative and unorthodox. I think creativity is a very undervalued skill in debate, and will reward it accordingly. I will be sympathetic to the fact that you are taking a risk, and the argument 'Don't vote off this, it doesn't have a card' wont fly. You can leverage the fact that carded evidence is more LIKELY to be correct though, and don't be afraid to do it.

Weigh. Tell me why a certain argument is more important than another one. Just saying that it is is not enough for me.

Finally, don't just extend the AC or NC through when your opponent made responses to the case, and then claim they didn't. I will not be very happy about that.

TLDR; Be reasonable, be creative, weigh, explain your arguments, and make sure both you and your opponent have a good time.

I am a parent/lay judge. Please do not use complicated debate terminology, and speak clearly at a normal speed.

Email: epicurus7@gmail.com