Hey there, I'm Meghan (she/her) and I'm happy to be your judge for the round! I like to remain as unbiased as possible, as debate rounds don't necessarily convey your personal beliefs. However, if you end up arguing something harmful, discriminatory, or very morally wrong, I will not vote for you (and your behavior will be reflected in your speaks). Speech & Debate is a safe, educational space and we do not want to ruin that by being hateful. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins, and I will be happy to answer. :)

Here's my email, please add me to the chain: mncrohe@gmail.com

Experience: My main event is policy, but I have dabbled in LD and PF among other supplemental events and a few speech events.

Policy

Things to Note

-Tech over truth--if someone argues something that I don't necessarily agree with (like global warming isn't real) and you drop the argument I have no choice but to prefer your opponent's claims

-Spreading: I believe debate should provide training for good public communication. It is essential that I am able to understand your arguments and your supporting evidence. I will make a commitment to listen carefully, but I expect you to make a commitment to speak clearly

-CP: Counterplans can provide a reason to vote negative so long as they are competitive (meaning they give a reason to reject the affirmative policy). If the aff perms and you don't have a good response then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-T: Topicality is an independent voting issue. If you're an aff, don't run RVI, or theory that T is a time suck (if your case is truly topical you can defend it). I will vote on topicality whenever the negative team can show that the affirmative plan fails to follow the terms of the resolution.

-K: I will try to keep an open mind about any argument which makes sense. I have participated in K debate, and too many debaters simply use K buzzwords to scare their opponents without explaining how the K actually functions. If you decide to run a K, tell me about what the alt world will look like PLEASE.

-Theory: You should still have on-case defense and should attack your opponent's arguments. Provide a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters, or I will not consider it a voting issue. Theory was created to make debate fair against abusive debaters, so if you use it in an abusive manner, I will not consider it.

-10 off? No. Don't gish gallop.

-Disclosure theory? Cheap tactic. If you claim you should win the debate over a Wiki dispute, consider my ballot lost. Do NOT make assumptions about your opponents' knowledge and experience.

Things I Like:

-Signposting

-Providing voting issues (impact calculus, weighing the round, whatever you like to call it)

-Line-by-line responses

-Asking thought-provoking questions during CX, or questions with the intent of referring back to them in your speeches

-On Aff, taking some time to explain your plan, how it's incorporated, the outcome, or what the world will look like

-Analytics in the docs are helpful because online connection can be pretty bad and I don't want to miss anything important!

Things I Dislike:

-Lying about your opponent(s) dropping arguments

-Being rude and/or aggressive in CX

-Running condo badly, like running a Cap K during the neg block, kicking a CP too early/late, or just ignoring your disads

-Cold-dropping arguments

-Rebuttals that are almost strictly a regurgitation of the previous speeches

-Only running theory/off-case args and ignoring on-case args ://

-Cutting cards in the middle of speaking (please have them prepped before the round and ensure you have enough time to say what you want to say, or send them before the next cross begins)

-I don't like K Affs :( but I can vote on them

Lincoln-Douglas

Things to Note:

-Even if I am a CX debater, LD should be trad LD. No CPs unless it is allowed in the circuit

-I don't like spreading in LD, unless you share the case with me and your opponent

Things I Like:

-Definitive framework debate--I don't want to have to decide who's the winning framework, I want to know by the end of the round

-Solid claim/data/warrant/impact link chain

Things I Dislike:

-Terrible linking

-Not accessing impacts or contentions

-Only sticking to the framework debate

-Ignoring the framework debate (find a happy medium)

-A million contentions

-Too much analytics, too little evidence

Public Forum

Things I Like:

-Quality over quantity

-Having clear claim, evidence, and warrant

-Clear voting issues

Things I Don't Like

-Being aggressive rather than assertive during crossfire (we may be here to argue, but it should be civil!)

-Spreading (come on, it's PF, not Policy)

-Purely definition debates

TLDR; be respectful, have sound arguments, and speak loudly and clearly. Other than that, we're all here to have fun and learn something, and I do love good jokes and puns!

I am a parent judge and usually judge PF. I do “flow” the rounds to track the speaks. If you have convincing and logical arguments (with or without evidence), and are able to effectively counter and prove your stand, it will help me vote for you. I would stop you for the type of discussion that is totally irrelevant to the debate topic. Speed is no problem, yet it’s not a contest to cram words in seconds.

Quick Facts

-> Highschool junior with experience in LD, PF, policy, extemp debate, and BQ (basically every debate event)

-> My hearing is a little bad so make sure you speak at least slightly louder than you would in conversation

-> My email is ellakasat@gmail.com if you ever have any questions :)

-> definitely trad, if you want to run something prog, be careful since I'll only vote on it if it actually makes sense, is relevant to the topic, and if it's very well run. if you don't understand what you are running I won't vote on it.

->please do not spread, and if you absolutely must spread you must share the docs and you will get lower speaks

ON LD :)

LD is my favorite event by far. I personally don't love super complex frameworks, but I don't mind if something out of pocket is run. I value impactful arguments in the round, but they have to fit under the framework. Speaking isn't super important to me, just be loud enough and don't spread.

ON PF :)

I strongly dislike over-blown nuke war impacts, but if you do have a real link to it then I can vibe with it.

ON POLICY :)

I don't love super progressive policy, but since that is the nature of policy, I'll live with it. Do try to explain stuff like K's and theory shells, because if it sounds like you don't understand what K you are arguing then I won't vote on it.

Hello, my name is Arsh and I have been doing Public Forum Debate for three years mostly in the national circuit.

Speaks:

If you sound good and use rhetorical strategies you will have higher speaks. I won't award speaks off what you said, unless it's something inappropriate, rather just how you said it.

30 speaks if BOTH OF YOU dance during the first thirty seconds of two of your speeches.

Cross

What happens or what is said in cross doesn't affect where I end up placing my ballot, however, if you bring it up in speech then it does.

If, in my opinion, you're dominating the other team in cross and/or being rhetorically strong, I'll award more speaks to you.

Speeches:

I stop evaluating the content of your speech at the end of your first sentence after time.

Tech>Truth. I don't necessarily mean that you can say whatever claim you want with no reasoning and I'll put it down as an argument. You have to warrant it to a good enough extent that your argument is a little believable. If you give me an inherently wrong argument and provide enough warranting for it, I'll flow it through and the other team should respond.

Make sure you warrant your arguments. In any speech, don't give just a claim as to why something is true or false, explain it. If you don't 1. there is no guarantee I flowed it or did it correctly 2. if it comes down to it in my ballot, I'll drop that argument first.

Tabula Rasa. I don't really care what I believe or what's true in the real world.

Evaluating the Round

Please weigh lol, if you don't it's really hard for me to figure out who won because then I have to go off just the warranting which is extremely subjective. If you think you surely won this round but you lost, you probably didn't weigh.

Remember to have fun, doing this just for college is kinda lame :).

Senior at Unionville High School

Have done LD since I entered high school and qualified for NSDA Nationals and the Tournament of Champions last year.

I haven't debated the fossil fuels topic though I have been prepping for it so I am pretty familiar with the topic lit/arguments though explaining uncommon acronyms and terms wouldn't hurt.

I flow and am tabula rasa (as much as one can be), though truer arguments are always more convincing and set the bar for response higher.

Unionville '23

4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)

tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com

CX at cal:

- Haven't judged this topic yet, so please don't assume I know the acronyms

- start slow then build up, takes a bit time for me to adjust to circuit speed.

did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.

--> would prefer to have less than 6 flows

--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic

--> not great for judging topicality against plans, esp w/ my limited topic knowledge here.

--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience

--> love clever cross-apps and turns

--> love a good K debate

--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing

To LDeRs:

1 - stock Ks, larp

2 - creative K-ish phil

3 - theory, T

4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks

5/S - tricks, friv theory

for novices:

1 - please use up all your speech time!!!If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.

2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.

3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts

speaks:

+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper

+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible

-0.2 if you read theory or tricks against novice or traditional debaters (other type of args are fine tho)

sophzhang10@gmail.com add me to the email chain pls.

tech>truth

implicate ur responses + warrant ur ev (idc if u have the best evidence in the world, if you don't tell me the significance of it, i will not give much weight to it)

have a real back and forth. don't just repeat ur responses cus then there's zero clash and i'll get bored

i won't flow after time is up

+0.2 speaks if you give your speech off paper, and another +0.2 if you don’t use any electronic device at all during the round (timers are fine but not phones).

lowest speaks possible if u prep steal

30 speaks if you do a backflip in the middle of one of your speeches