Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.

CX TEAMS: START THE EMAIL CHAIN AS SOON AS ALL DEBATERS ARE IN THE ROOM.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org

high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually in someone's tab. as such, i'm not keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.

--

hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep, but do not abuse this.

on flowing:

I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.

you have GOT to put inflections, emphasis etc in your speeches otherwise i WILL NOT be able to hear, understand, and flow you. if you pick up nothing else from this paradigm, absorb this and invest in practices that will allow you to be a clear and impactful reader.

you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.

i flow args not authors most of the time. EXTEND YOUR ARGS. TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE REPLYING TO. "judge, extend our brooks '03" tells me nothing. where am i putting that? what is it answering? how is it relevant? if i have to answer those questions myself, there's an issue. you want me to do as little intervention in the back as possible-- tell me exactly where you want something flowed, that way at the end of the round we can be assured that my decision is based off of what you all debated for me, not my own opinions or biases.

POLICY basics:

1. I DO NOT FLOW FROM SPEECH DOCS. i flow what i hear, which means speak up, speak clearly, and if you're tempted to double breathe, don't. it's distracting and doesn't actually help you debate better or faster. if you go silent while you spread, don't. i have tinnitus in BOTH ears, i will stop flowing if you become unintelligible. you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.
2. do not read theory at me. your speaks will reflect you reading theory at me poorly
3. keep your flows organized-- the easiest way to do that is by sign posting ("next", "and", "now onto" are perfect phrases for keeping the pace of a speech while still allowing the judge time to switch flows).
4. for neg teams in particular: do not prioritize reading a thousand args in the 1NC over 1-2 actual strategies. i will not reward you for wasting aff and MY time. do not play with me on this.
5. Do Not Read Theory At Me.
6. If you're nonblack and running Black args, 1) your reasoning had better be solid 2) i'm giving 24s and below to whoever does it poorly. using antiblackness, afropess and other Black args as "gotchas!" against teams in rounds IS in itself antiblack, and i'm not going to listen to the commodification of Blackness for a ballot. if your strategy needs to change because of this, you also need to be evaluating why you had those args in your arsenal in the first place.

tldr:
- read clearly and loudly, or i will not flow your speech. don't read theory at me. don't read bad Ks at me. your speaks will reflect you reading things poorly at me. don't read Black args if you're not Black, as 'gotchas' against your opponents; i will break tabroom giving you the lowest possible speaks.

--

LD BASICS:
if you want to have an in depth, hardcore theory or k debate, i am not the judge for you. don't do it to yourself or to me. generally i'll evaluate most arguments fairly; if a team can explain and convince me to vote for them, and the flow matches, that's all i really need to give a ballot. that being said, i don't regularly judge LD so my ear is NOT trained to y'all's jargon and whatnot. in case you didn't read above, i have tinnitus in both ears and need you to SLOW DOWN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPEECH. enunciate anything of importance; no, that doesn't mean your whole speech lmao (unless you're going for high speaks, bc yes i will award higher speaks to whoever enunciates and emphasizes arguments in their speeches).

T: i don't like T debates, but i'll give them a fair evaluation!
larp v larp: sure, go for it
larp v k: i'll be honest, i'll probably lean larp here if the k team doesn't properly explain or defend themselves
k v k: please god do not do this to us. i mean it. it will be an unpleasant round for everyone involved.
disclosure: fairness is an impact but don't take this to an extreme.
no RVIs: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
friv. theory: if it's truly frivolous, no i'm not voting on it. i'll evaluate every argument given in the debate, but it NEEDS to have a basis in truth, or be proven not an absolute waste of debate time.

Port of Los Angeles High School '21

Dartmouth College '25

Put me on the email chain - jasong7254@gmail.com

Open to K/policy debate.

Please put me on the email chain: qibinlei@gmail.com – feel free to email me if you have any questions about debate.

Background – I (he/him) was a policy debater at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (UDL) for 4 years

Glenbrooks

I've been out of the debate community for a bit now and I haven't judged LD in over a year (hence no familiarity with the current topic). Please slow down.

I tend to agree with Jonathan Meza and Jared Burke on their perception of debate. Most of my current understanding of debate has come from dialogue with them. However I don't have as extensive of an understanding of the different arguments that have grown within this topic and debate in general.

Please try to record your speeches, I am on the East Coast so if my internet/yours becomes sketch, we can rely on that as backup.

I have a few thoughts about LD

1) Don't run tricks in front of me. I will not get them, nor will vote on them.

2) I do not understand most phil arguments (I have atmost the most basic understanding of util and ontology, if you choose to run this in front of me, please explain your theory of power)

3) Conditionality is probably an issue due to the time constraints (can be persuaded either way)

4) Nebel T probably isn't a real argument (can possibly be persuaded)

5) I won't vote on Reverse Voting Issues (RVIs)

6) I don't have the background knowledge or lit reading necessary to understand most post-modern arguments

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

My name is Desma. I was a varsity debater with CCHS for about 2 years. I now coach the team and am in my 2nd almost 3rd year of coaching. I am a current History major. I love this year's topic, I believe that it makes for a very fun year. I am very familiar with a lot of the cases on the wiki.

I am a fairly easy judge. My prefrences are: Self-time. Tag teaming is OK but try not to do it so much, I do disclose if the tournament allows. I believe that this should be a safe space so please refrain from excessive remarks towards your opponets.

T - I do need counter-interprations otherwise I am more likely to vote on T. I believe that there needs to be proper FW to support it otherwise it cancels itself out. I do like Theory debates I think that they can be very fun to judge just ensure that you have the proper backing otherwise it does count against you. When it comes to disclosure unless you are breaking new there is no real reason why you shouldn't disclose, if you don't I am likely to give that to the team.

K- I love krtiks, but please read the FW and links otherwise it's not worth it to read. I think that K's can make a very compelling NEG argument. I am not a fan of K Aff's therefore if you do run with me please make sure that you go heavy on the FW.

CP & Da's - I love love a good CP and DA. I believe they are absolutely neccessaryfor this year's topic. Please as the NEG run this to ensure you have the most on the other teams.

NEG- I think that clash is so important for the educational value of debate. I believe that there is always a case that you can run. I don't like when teams run over 7+ off's, if that's your strat then strike me. I think that a sweet spot is 3-5 OFF.

AFF- You have to have strong FW and solvency otherwise I am inclined to vote neg. The idea is that you must show me what is wrong with the SQUO in order for me to believe that I should pass your plan.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Friendly reminder:

READ THE COMPLETE TAG INCLUDING THE AUTHOR( This causes -0.5 onto your speaker points)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can send any files to my email: dmarquezdebate87@gmail.com

Please feel free to contact me via email with any questions/comments/concerns.

If you would like more feedback please email me.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you and best of luck!

Desma or Des

SHE/HER/HERS

my info:

erin.panguito@gmail.com

My name is Erin and I use she/her pronouns.

I did policy at Downtown Magnets High School in LAMDL for a little over 3 years.

Not super familiar with this resolution, tech over truth, I was mostly a K debater if that means anything. Have fun!

Burbank '23, Harvard '26

UPDATE 01.03.22: I'm a little tired of the hyper-leftist assumptions of debaters. Don't get me wrong: these arguments can absolutely win my ballot, but (especially in Parli/WSD) you are not going to convince me by running a blippy analytic on 'harmful arguments'. There is a qualitative difference between genuinely problematic arguments and right-wing DAs made in good faith. Progressivism is not always correct.

UPDATE 1.10.22: How come no one's willing to banter with each other anymore? Debate with personality! So many of y'all are speaking in sterile terms -- I'd much rather see an enjoyable round with sides taking shots at each other like the international circuit does.

Email chain @ sungjooyoon@outlook.com, post-round questions @ sungjooyoon@college.harvard.edu

Just as a note, I seldom judge anything other than PF and maybe some Parli scrimmages in debate. Seems silly to have a speech paradigm up but if you ask me a question about it I'll tell you no lies. Also as a preface - I have no idea why West Coast Parli continues to trend towards progressive, Policy-esque debate. In judging, I've learned to adapt but I find it weird that a PIC or a squirrely CP can win an APDA round. My thoughts on this are extended below.

General debate preferences:

- Policy/LARP (or plan stock based on event) > K (non post-modernist) > Theory (non-friv) > Tricks > Theory (friv) > K (post-modernist or high) but this is really up to you. It's your debate, not mine.

- Tech = truth. Not as in flay, but as in that debate is for education and if your advocacy causes a steep drop-off in education irrespective of the tech aspects of it, probably not high on my list. My pen speed can flow up to 300 WPM and I will flow off a speech doc (given you read args), but I value public speaking as a portable skill (and thus a voter). I do not understand judges in evidence-based debate formats who insist against speech docs playing a role in the flow -- clear speaking is already far gone at that point. Might be good to know for single-judge panels.

- I’ll listen to any argument, but I prefer some level of probabilistic analysis. You can run Bostrom and give me a reason not to, however.

- Nebel T is unintuitive. If I ask you to bring chairs in, our mutual setting & location specifies what chairs I’m talking about. Context & listener inference are just as important as the literal definition of a phrase - basically pragmatics, which I buy. Pro has the absolute right to read plantext in any debate as long as it's not against event-specific or tournament-specific rules.

- If uniqueness is a binary yes-no question, it controls the direction of the link. If uniqueness is a spectrum, then the link itself controls directionality.

- A few things I don’t like: don’t float PICs or PICs in general. Don’t powertag. Don’t run non-competitive CPs (including consult or process). Don’t run Con-Con. Don’t run a politics DA unless there’s a clear internal link. Don’t run Baudrillard or other high theory if you don't understand the lit. But again, this is really up to you. It's your debate, not mine. You can change my mind.

- A few things I’m okay with: Pomo is a try-or-die. Spark and wipeout are eh but I’ve voted on them before. Specs and memes are eh also.

- A few things I like: I will judge kick for you. Well-justified 30 speaks theory. Conjunction fallacies. TKOs on dropped T. I also really like the idea that concession != truth. I also like giving out L-25s if you’re an ass during the round, but W-29.5-30s if you’re not. Generosity is a virtue.

- If your opponents do not understand progressive argumentation and you run it anyway, you’re not only an asshat but you’re going to get an L-25 if they even come close to articulating abuse. Clear that up before, it’s your burden.

- Stolen from Ethan Siegel: "I do not evaluate the debater, only the argument. That means that if the white kid in an Armani suit runs an Indigenous Peoples K I am going to take it at face value. If you don't think he should run that then read something that convinces me." Your identity is not a virtue. It can be a powerful vessel for your lived experiences, and that is convincing (believe me, many of the strongest characterizations I've voted for come vis-a-vis a debater's story). But you have to do that legwork -- it is not enough to say that you are something thus you win. This is debate, not Model UN.

TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)

Background: I'm currently a junior at Stanford University and I've coached PF at Redwood MS and am currently the Speech coach for Palo Alto HS. I've competed in PF debate, Original Oratory, Extemp (primarily international extemp), and have done POI and poetry during my 4 years in high school.

Email: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com (feel free to contact me about my comments on your ballots or if you have any questions :)

PF Paradigm: I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

Policy Paradigm: I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed-wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.

LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

Speech: I judge based on content, delivery, and creativity. I appreciate a speech that has solid content where the arguments are well structured and supported. For platform events, I find that many points are surface level so speeches that go in depth on your points will get extra brownie points. I love for analysis to connect and piece together everything for me so that it's obvious the message that you're getting at. Ambiguity in speeches does not equate to nuance and I would make sure that you know why you're leaving things ambiguous so that it is more purposeful in your speech.

For interp events, I focus specifically on blocking and the clarity of the storyline. I like pieces that have a lot of meaning but a clear exposition, climax, and "resolution" (doesn't have to be an exact solution to the problem you present and are showing us, but should be a good ending to showcase your message).