Samantha Gerber (she/her/hers)

Team Code: St. Luke's GG

Add me to the chain or doc: gerbers25@stlukesct.org

TL;DR

- Tech

- If you run/say anything offensive or bigoted I will give L20s (applies to everything below)

General

- Tech > truth

- Don't adhom

- Time yourself

- I don't flow cross so you can skip it

Substance

- Extend warranting in every speech

- No frontlining in 2nd constructive

- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

- Defense is sticky

- Comparative weighing is good

- Summary should weigh

- FF should extend summary weighing

Speed

- Speed is fine, I'll clear you once if I need to and after that will flow what I can understand

- Send speech docs for constructives and rebuttals

Progressive Argumentation

- I'll evaluate any theory and Ks

- I'm not as familiar with tricks so run at your own risk

- I don't like TW theory (if the case is graphic I'll stop the round)

Speaks

- Start at 29 and adjust accordingly

- Low speaks if you're mean

- High speaks if you're silly and good at debate

Cool People

- Dash Gilrain-Lennon

Hello!

My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).

Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.

Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.

PF:

TLDR: Hi I'm Dash! I'm a Junior debater for St. Luke's GG. I'm pretty laid-back so if you have preferences for how the round should run you can tell me. Tech over truth, tab, etc. Run whatever you like to run. if you have any questions please ask. I'm a good judge for progressive arguments. Add me to the chain @ gilrain-lennond25stlukesct.org

Non-negotiables:

Respect your opponents and their identities

Don't be cruel, offensive, or generally a bad person

Strike me if you don't have cut cards, otherwise I'll treat your argument like an analytic

I'm fine with speed. Send a speech doc, if you're super unclear I might "clear" yo

Weighing: Do it. Tell me what order to evaluate the offense in the round in, if teams agree on weighing mechanisms tell me why your link/impact is better comparatively.

Cross - I won't flow cross but I'll pay attention, if something is important bring it up in speech

Progressive Arguments- run whatever, judge instruction is a good idea.

Judging stuff:

I start speaks at a 28.5 or like a 28.8 if you have rly good evidence ethics

I'll disclose the decision, if you have any questions please feel free to ask

you can postround me if you want

High speaks for Good signposting, speech docs, and disclosure, a good strategic collapse, being funny, Comparative weighing, A well-used framework

Low Speaks forPrep stealing, paraphrasing, taking forever to send evidence (can be avoided by sending speech docs, just saying), Extending 10,000 pieces of offense without telling me how to evaluate them.

Rankings:

Good ev good warrant > Bad ev good warrant > Good ev bad warrant > bad response

Coffee > Monster > Red Bull> Other energy drink

Cool People

- Samantha Gerber

(Real paradigm here)

TOC update: here are some resources I put together for the housing topic area

Background: debated in high school. That was fun! Included in my impressive list of accomplishments are such gems as: going 2-3 at Vassar, being told I am “dry enough to go straight into law” by a judge at Ridge, and spending approximately 23 seconds arguing that free will doesn’t exist in Yale Octos. Outside of debate, some of my hobbies include debating, débáting, and dëbätïng. For instance, if you ever find a college debate round with like 7 views on YouTube, 5 of them are probably from me.

Some notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences:

- “Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

- If you say phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will likely assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of. I’m kritical and kwestioning of the konsistent kustom of katering to adjudikators through kritical klaims in kompetitive debate. Konsequently, I kan’t komprehend komplicated kritical klaims. In short: kick the Ks to limit the Ls and wrack up Ws

- If you pull out one of those tripod-desk-stand thingies, I will assume you are using it as a table for brunch. And then get offended if you don’t offer me food.

- If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “ULI,” I shall Google “ULI” and see that “ULI” refers to the “Urban Land Institute;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution

- If you time yourself using your phone’s alarm and the ringer audibly goes off, I will assume the noise is coming from my microwave and immediately rush off to make sure my food isn’t burning

- Sometimes, when I’m walking around on the streets, people’ll come up to me and shout “RYYYAANNNN – WHAT’RE YOUR THOUGHTS ON USING ABUSIVE DEFINITIONS TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE???” to which I always respond: “Roses are red, violets are blue, don’t use abusive definitions, for I will hate you :)”

FAQ

Q: Are you okay with PICs?

A: Not sure why you capitalized it like that, but I absolutely ADORE dog pics, cat pics, fluffy cow pics, or basically any [insert cute thing here] pics

Q: Do you like theory?

A: Depends on the theory. Like, for instance, I’m really into the theory that colleges are just money laundering fronts for the massive #2 pencil lobbying industry. Watch out folks: it’s not just Big Oil and Big Pharma that runs the world. It’s also Big Pencil

Q: Do you enjoy POIs?

A: Oh yes for sure! But please, for the love of all things good on planet earth, under no circumstances *ever* should you pronounce the word “POI” phonetically in a way that rhymes with words like “toy” or “boy.” Please.

Q: Will you give me an extra speaker point if I bring you food?

A: I’m actually such a generous person that I’d rather bring you the food! To make sure I’m delivering it to the right place, just shoot me an email with your name, address, preferred type of pizza, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

I am a high school debater who has been debating for the past 6 years. I have much experience with tournaments on the East Coast, along with some international competitions.

Please signpost! It makes things so much easier for me to follow.

Talk at a comfortable pace as long as you are sure that I can understand you.

Remember to be calm and try your best! Have fun with it, and no matter what the result is you can only learn.

Tabroom paradigm

The tldr if you are almost done with prep and just realized i have a paradigm:

East cost/BP level lay, truth> tech, do not love theory/K’s, honest and well-weighed arguments will get you very far, be kind and respectful. In general, if you are nice (+ bonus points if you weigh) I will happily and fairly judge whatever round you have!

Background on me:

• she/her

• I’ve been debating and judging competitively for 4 years. I have experience in American Parli (Exclusively east coast parli), British Parli (my fav), and World Schools.

• Debating as a freshman at Wesleyan University now!

• Particular areas of interest: government, law, courts, justice, social movements + social action, history, feminism, Jewish history + culture, IR, art

• Particular areas of disinterest: sports, econ/finance (you can run these but no jargon)

• I was an equity officer on the NYPDL board for two years and ran equity in local middle school leagues for a few years. Equity is very important to me.

• I adore debate and the debating community! If you ever want help, feedback, advice, support, don’t hesitate to reach out! + do your part to keep this community awesome. Good vibes in and out of round please! (to contact me: juliaswenja@gmailcom)

Things to know if i’m judging you:

My general philosophy: Debate is about being the most persuasive, not being the sneakiest → for this reason, clear+ intuitive arguments, polite + equitable behavior, and honest weighing are the most important things to me.

• Truth > tech but not by miles. Be reasonable and honest, and warrant and weigh.

• Equity is very important to me: treat every person in the room with respect and politeness, and treat every argument with thoughtfulness and nuance. Be aware of the position you speak from, and be conscious of how your identity informs your advantage in the debate world. Respect and kindness are non negotiable parts of being a persuasive speaker and member of this awesome community.

• Theory/K’s: I am an east coast/BP judge, so think east coast/BP level lay. I will not autodrop anyone, but I have no experience at all with theory or Ks of any kind and have a high level of skepticism about it. I wouldn’t recommend running theory in front of me: I will judge fairly whatever debate happens but will be quite grumpy with you.

• Speed: I am a good flower and can keep up with any speed east coast or BP. No spreading please!

• Signposting: signpost please!

• Content warnings: any obviously triggering content needs to be content warned. Don’t run very graphic violence in front of me please.

• Offtime roadmaps: Not my fav. You were given an amount of time by the debate gods. Use it!

• Rhetoric: I love a strategic use of rhetoric/emotion. Can be a powerful tool in persuasion!

• Rebuttals: I adore rebuttal speeches, and a strong LOR/PMR has a lot of power for me. Good round vision and weighing will make me VERY happy. I dislike dishonesty or redundancy in rebuttals.

• organization/flowing/coverage: I’m not a strict flow judge and don’t care a ton about dropped arguments. However, prioritizing and strategic coverage is important. Spend lots of time on the best arguments!

• Definitions debate: noooooooothank you

• Cases:

• Sneaky cases/Counter plans: I have a preference for straight opping and goving motions. I don’t like sneaky strategic decisions and prefer not to judge them unless there isn’t a different clear path to victory. If you run a CP, please commit to it.

• Creativity: I have no strong preference for creative cases: if they’re good arguments, run them, if not, keep it simple. Please don’t sacrifice intuitive and clear cases to creative ones. I will chuckle if you run something funny or clever but there won’t be extra points for creativity.

• Quality vs. quantity: I love dense + heavily warranted cases! Feel free to throw as many mechs as possible

• Principles: I have no strong bias for or against principled arguments. If the argument is warranted strongly and weighed well, I will happily vote on it. If not, I probably won’t.

I think a few simple things can easily lose you a round, so I will caution people to avoid them but don't feel pressured by a paradigm to debate a certain way. I think paradigms only make people pander to judges rather than actually consider their style, but I'll still write a few for those who would like one. I am heavily experienced in parliamentary, presidential, and most extemporaneous debate, I can judge LD and PF but try to not box me out of the round with confusing metrics, sign posting is the first thing a judge considers.

- Do not spread, the point of debate is to be understandable by the public and a general layperson to judge an argument it should not a barking competition. Maintain a reasonable speed for anyone to understand, even if I'm a naturally fast speaker.

- I know how to flow tech terms but preferably don't run Kritiks, T-Shells, or any form of Theory for the sake of my sanity, if you need to please spell it out for me very clearly and don't linger on it for too long

- Please time yourself; I will also be timing, don't run too over time but I do allow a bit of grace

- I will run heavily on flow and speaks will vary based on quality of argumentation and speaking ability, the better speaker will not always win, however being a clear and intelligible speaker will make your arguments easier to follow and vote for

- Do not speak in absolutes, one of my biggest gripes is when someone spats on about uniqueness for 30 seconds and says "their entire case is absolutely disproven we win", what was the point of debating if your opponent just loses like that, try to keep your language to not sound so certain, "And because of x, y, and z we win this debate judge and urge you to vote for x" it's much better than saying "judge we win so you must vote for x" just a general gripe because often debaters who speak in absolutes strawman and only hit the surface level of arguments

- My scoring range for normal 30 point is pretty standard,

- 22: (extremely rare) awful and probably inappropriate

- 23: (rare) really bad, barely spoke

- 24: bad, not speaking for full time

- 25: average, not good but decent enough

- 26: good, nothing fantastic but good

- 27: I really enjoyed you as a debater, very good

- 28: (rare) fantastic, clear, well argued, and extremely efficient

- 29: (extremely rare) phenomenal, no real critiques and offered flawless argumentation and speaking ability

- 30: (never going to be given, but try and prove me wrong and earn it) felt like Churchill was in the round

Generally I just like a debate where each team gives their all, is civil, and acts human. Best of luck to anyone I judge and I hope this was helpful!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm