Hello, my name is Gabe Au. If it means anything, I did like 2 years of PF, 1 year of BQ for Auburn High School. I currently go to JHU, and do APDA/BP debate now. As a judge, I open to giving as much feedback as you want, as well as any feedback you may have for how I have performed as a judge (it's usually pretty hard to offend me, so feel free to say whatever you think!).  You can email me at gau1@jhu.edu after round if you have any issues/concerns/questions!

Stuff for PF

I mostly judge FLAY (Flow-lay), since I think that is what PF is intended to mirror, though I lean tech over truth when it comes down to it.

I’m not very good with progressive debate.

Theory should only be used when there is a pretty bad violation of the rules (pls no paraphrasing theory)

Conflicting evidence should have a clear comparison to prove which one should be accepted- I will just count it as a wash if both sides simply keep repeating the same points.

Signpost plenty.

Keep your own time, though if you feel you want me to, I’m fine with that.

No counterplans, no spreading, this is PF.

Give me a narrative. By all means, make your round entertaining and creative!

The Round™

Constructive speeches:

- Explain your cards (if it seems logical, I’ll flow it, but I’ll count it as an analytical argument unless you explain it) (Aka don’t card dump)

- Don’t throw a bunch of statistics at me: explain the methodology and meaning. It's impossible to read a whole academic article in prep time, so please convince me that you understand what you are talking about and not just repeating a quote from some random professor who made a predication with a large number in it.

Rebuttals:

- Second speaking teams must respond to first speaking team’s rebuttals

- Good analytical rebuttals are fine

Summaries and Final Focus:

- Collapse and weigh

- Frontline stuff if you can

- No new contentions in summary, no new information in final focus

Do a Jojo's pose before constructive for +0.1 speaks to both partners. Have fun!

*****

Stuff for LD

I come from PF, so my default judging style is mostly "flay" (off the flow, but I will intuition check some arguments), although I will try to lean more tech/tabula rasa as possible for LD debate.

I really prefer that you do not spread, but if you have to, please include me in the email chain.

Signpost plenty. Keep your own time, though if you feel you want me to, I’m fine with that.

Give me a narrative. By all means, make your round entertaining and creative. I prefer seeing a fun round compared to the nth round with the same stock arguments.

I’m also not very good with progressive debate and I prefer trad debate.

• I think that theory should only be used when there is a gross violation of the rules (e.g., when people are being discriminatory or have badly cut cards).
• To be completely honest, I also think that K's are kinda dumb, but I will try to evaluate best I can.
• Different framing of the round beyond the usual utilitarianism/cost-benefit-analysis is cool though.

If you want to run theory and/or K's

• Time to very clearly explain how I should evaluate the round under the theory/K framework and metaweigh that framework if it comes into question
• Don't just rattle off like 10 really quick points of your theory doc and say that your opponent did not address all of them.
• Carry that weighing under the theory or K cleanly through the round, make it clear that you beat them off case, and then move on if you have extra time.

Evidence

Conflicting evidence should have a clear comparison to prove which one should be accepted- I will just count it as a wash if both sides simply keep repeating the same points.

Statistics: please do not repeat a number over and over without telling me how the study works. It is impossible to read an academic article in the span of prep time, so you need to do the work to bring across any numerical impacts, rather than just quoting a large number from some professor.

The Round™ 

Constructive speeches:

• Explain your cards beyond just reading them (Aka don’t card dump) (if it seems logical, I’ll flow it, but I’ll evaluate it as an analytical argument unless you give me some analysis on why it matters) 
• Don’t throw a bunch of statistics at me: explain the methodology and meaning. 

First Rebuttals:

• Please try to respond to first speaking team’s rebuttals
• Please try to extend/rehash what you would like me to weigh at the end by either saying that it was not addressed or by responding to earlier rebuttals. If you do not carry stuff through all of your speeches, it will be very hard for me to vote on it at the end.
• Good/"mechanized" analytical rebuttals are fine. However, just saying "this is not true" or "my impact is true so their case is not true" is not actually a rebuttal, please provide clash (i.e. why I should prefer your impact/cards/reasoning over your opponents)

Last speeches:

• Collapse on your most important contention and weigh (I will usually prefer one weighed contention over lots of contentions at the end of the round)
• I prefer no new contentions or information here, these few speeches should crystallize the debate into several main points and explain why I should vote exclusively for one side over another, not some tricky analysis that your opponent does not have time to respond to.

CX: I don't flow CX, but some of my speaks will be based off how well you can extract information/utilize CX for the debate

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I graduated from Johns Hopkins University, where I participated in American Parliamentary, broke, and received speaker awards.

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com.

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

TLDR: as long are you properly warrant, impact, WEIGH your arguments, you'll be fine. Do whatever you do best. I will only judge whatever is presented in the round. Coverage is important- conceded arguments are the truest.

INTRO

Hello! I'm Muzzi (He/him), a junior studying Math and Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University. I currently compete in American Parli (APDA) & British Parliamentary (BP) with a couple of breaks/speaks.

EXPERIENCE

- 3rd year of APDA

- 1 year of BP

- 1 year of WSDC + Coaching

OVERALL:

Ultimately, I see debate as an educational space where individuals are allowed the platform to use their voice in whichever way they want. I value the technical aspect of debate most, so make sure you have good flow coverage, properly warrant your claims, and WEIGH for me. I will not inject my own thoughts and beliefs when judging a round, so you need to make sure you cover all your bases and thoroughly weigh/mechanize your impacts. I will regard dropped arguments as true but be sure to take advantage of that and explain why it matters in the round.

I value framework debates. Please be sure to engage with the framework beyond just reading it at the top. Link back to your framework when you weigh, especially in rebuttals.

I'm okay with but don't particularly enjoy Kritik debates. Be sure to properly link to the resolution, or present adequate theory as to why I should ignore the resolution, or why it's bad. Performative speeches are fine with me, as long as you explain the necessity/advantage for the performance and what it brings to the round.

Similarly, I will vote on theory arguments as long as they are warranted out. HOWEVER, take more time on your theory, since I am quite hesitant to vote ONLY on theory. For example, I don't really ~like~ rvis, but will vote on it if dropped or warranted out well. I need the theory debate to be fully fleshed out with tangible impacts to the round. Take a little more time in explaining specific burdens to me (like one more sentence). I've switched debate styles a lot (And have less experience with purely American fromats) and the burdens specific to a debate format are a little lost to me, so just remind me.

I appreciate arguments explaining how you want me to judge and explaining why this is the case (e.g. role of the judge, role of the ballot). If not contested, this is how I will frame my ballot.

LD SPECIFIC

Take your time with the theory. I encourage philosophy debates, but I think they are difficult to properly develop within a round, so be efficient with the development of your arguments.

SPEAKS

Off time roadmaps are encouraged, SIGNPOSTNG is necessary.

From my Apda experience, I am not super okay with speed and may be a little rusty. Take that however you want. I weigh content and clarity heavily when assigning speaks. Please be mindful of equity. If you do/say something offensive or make the debate inaccessible, I will dock speaks. Being aggressive/assertive does not mean you cannot also be nice and mindful of others.

Howdy, I'm Anthony Holm, I am a first-year out, currently a freshman at the University of Iowa

Email - TonyHolm2000@gmail.com

====================================================================

LD DEBATE

TLDR: Don't read tricks in front of me, I want to see debaters making actual arguments their opponents can engage with, that goes for every argument.

If you are relying on your opponent being unable to engage with your argument as a strategy that will make me sad.

I don't care how you present yourself, you can wear whatever makes you comfortable and you can sit or stand or fly.

I'll presume based on speaker points (in Elim rounds I'll presume based on speaker points I would have given). However, if you argue for a different method of presumption I'll presume based on in round arguments.

General info:

- Although I used to read tricks and I'll understand them if you read them, I've come to realize how extremely toxic and exclusionary tricks-style arguments are. So I really don't want to hear them being read.

- I don't want to intervene, please make it clear what my evaluative mechanisms are, I.E. the tools I should be using to evaluate the round.

- I'll assume some stuff like conceded arguments are true, AC is 6 minutes, etc. Unless you make arguments about why I shouldn't.

For Novice Debate: This changes a lot of my paradigm, I think debaters should be focusing on the fundamentals at this stage. So don't read tricks (a prioris, Nibs, friv theory) I will ignore these arguments.

- If you read a K or read theory, please run it correctly. I'm very happy listening to Novice debaters read advanced arguments but make sure you do it correctly although during the first topic I am going to have a low bar for responses (this does not mean novi get to ignore these arguments, I'll be upset if I think you're trying to take advantage of my leniency)

Speaks- Everyone gets above a 29 unless you do something that makes the space exclusionary or toxic (tricks debate or prey on your opponent's misunderstanding) cause then I'll just give you average speaks. If you do something extremely out of line you get a 25.

Cross Ex:

Do whatever you want, T-Pose, Levitate, Ascend, I do not care just make sure your opponent can hear you and so can I

I probably won't pay much attention to the actual content of CX cause I'll be writing comments on the previous speech as well as CX strategy, so if you're gonna call back to the content of cross remind me

I want a fun cross, if things get heated I'll pry be paying close attention. A fire cross-ex is my favorite thing in Debate so if you get going, please be confident, be aggressive, and get the concession or slip up you need. So long as you are not personally attacking your opponent or causing psychological violence in another way be as aggressive as you want.

if you can dodge questions masterfully I will be very happy

if you let your opponent get away with murder then I'll be less happy

Spreading

do it, just send the email chain if you're opponent asks.

Framework: Probably my favorite kind of debate, determines what offense is / what impacts are/ how to weigh. The biggest mistake in framework rounds is just a bunch of conceded preclusion claims with no interaction, I’ll attempt to resolve these by doing work myself which I don’t want to do. Furthermore, if you just read a bunch of straw man dump arguments against a framework (like most people do to Kant) it will make me sad.

-TJFs: fine read them if you want.

-Skep Triggers: Funny, I always enjoy the new ways debaters articulate them.

Skep: Do not read skep as your primary argument, if skep comes up in round it should only be as a result of framework issues triggering skep, I.E. both debaters defend consequentialism but consequences fail is also read.

Impact justified frameworks: make me sad :( read them if you want but be ready to defend them.

Theory- I don’t default on any paradigm issue, they should be read in the round, if you do not read fairness/ed./whatever is a voter I will not evaluate theory as a voting issue.

- Also, I’m fine if the counter-interp text is just “I’ll defend the violation” or “converse/inverse of their interp”. I will never “gut check” against theory args.

- Personally, I think RVI's are good, competing interps is true, and theory is drop the debater. I'll do my best to keep these biases out of my decision though.

- if it turns out you had some masterful strategic plan that required you to not read paradigm issues (I've done that before) then I'll be happy if the strat works.

T: Is fun I like it, a lot of the same rules for theory still apply

- Nebel T confuses me so be clear about it.

Interps: I'm fine with minimal extensions, "extend the interp" with a very fast explanation would be fine I.E. "Extend the interp NIBS are bad"

Spikes: I like them, read them more. They are probably necessary for certain affs just cause the 1AR can be soul-crushing when debating tricks gods (@Peregrine Beckett) or just in general.

- I'll listen to OV arguments like "spikes are ableist" but I don't think these arguments are very persuasive given that most under-views will preempt these.

K’s- I think Ks are really interesting and can have some good debates, but I do have a few problems with them

- don't be purposefully vague about the K in order to take advantage of your opponent's misunderstanding, this will really upset me. So If you do not read a clear explanation of the K, I will not vote on it. of course, if your opponent straw mans it a bunch I'll be much more lenient.

- ROBs-ROJs should have normative justifications, I need clear warrants as to why our decision calculus ought to be based around the issues the K talks about

- I want to see the K debater substantively respond to the AC/NC instead of making very broad overviews.

- Read Non-T aff's all day long I think they can be great, just make sure you are very clear about them.

LARP- is cool, it's not my cup of tea so I don't do it much. But it's strategically beneficial so LARP all you want.

- if you make some wacky argument like spark or dedev you'll be very cool.

If you have any questions just ask me. if you're trying to do prefs, shoot me an email.

Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory and T a decent amount too.

As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there if I didn't hear it.

Add me on the email chain shreya.ananya5@gmail.com

This is a quick paradigm for Blake

I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP to a lesser degree.

If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I'm probably not your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene, something went wrong.

If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.

Other miscellaneous notes

Please be comprehensible

I will say slow and clear

I won't vote on eval after the 1AC or 1N

I pay attention to CX

Things that will make me sad and potentially you sad as well

1. Being mean/sketchy in CX to novices or inexperienced debaters
2. Choosing to read only off the doc for rebuttal speeches (I think inventing new arguments on your feet is a good skill to cultivate)
3. Reading an unreasonable amount of offs instead of engaging with the AC
4. Headache inducing underviews
5. Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches

Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot. Collapse and isolate a layer, explain why you're winning that layer, and why you outweigh your opponent.

This paradigm is for lay debate but applies to circuit debate too

I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge lay debate.

First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.

Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.

Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.

Fourth, I know that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance in lay debate and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.

Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.

I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!

Been involved in debate for over 20 years. Coached mostly PF and Congress, however have judged all events at just about every level.

Speed is fine in LD and policy, but in pf do not sacrifice clarity for speed.

Theory should ONLY ever be used if there is a real violation in the round that skews it greatly.

I like numbers, I will favor an economic impact over a general good of humanity argument. No warm fuzzies.

I HATE performance in any way shape or form. This will end the round for me. If you want to do a passion project go do OO.

Debate the topic. Tie your arguments to the topic. As long as you can establish a clear link we are good to go.

Mostly just ask what you want to know, I am pretty open and just like good debate.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Michael Meng (He/Him/His)

mengmichael100@gmail.com

I'll vote on anything... but heres my list on familiarity

Pref Scale

Phil: 1-2 (depends how dense, kant / pettit, hobbes, contracts, sentiments, etc are all 1's)

K (idpol, reps, generics): 2

K (high theory): 5

Substantive Tricks: 1-2

bad tricks*: 3-4

T/Theory**: 2

LARP: 3/5 (3 for ITs + Process CPs, 5 for straight policy adv/da)

Trad - plz strike me

*even though I dislike bad tricks (eval after, no aff/neg analytics, etc), you still have to respond to it, saying "this is friv" isnt responsive, its much better to just group most of these bc lots of em have the same flex warrant

**You should probably disclose, I'll vote on disclosure but the more friv the less i take it seriously eg. disclose who won the round in rr

Presume (if NONE OF THESE ARE CONTESTED):

DTD on T and Theory

No RVI's

Epistemic Confidence

Truth Testing

Competing Interps

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LESS IMPORTANT STUFF / SPEAKS

If you follow my TikTok and ss it and put it in the doc ill boost speaks by 0.5 my @ is local.sh(i)tposter * without the () bc tab told me to take a bad word out :c

Buy me boba = 30

Be nice to ur opponents, debate should be fun

If u drop an abhorrent impact turn I will vote on it... the threshold for response is literally just sneezing on it and if u can't respond u deserve to lose lmao, however if I do have to vote on this the winner gets W20

Other than that speaks are up to me, if you can beat me in a game of clash royale before the round (come early) you get 30, but if u lose -2 speaks of what I would've given u

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I am Samarth Modi. I am a Freshman at UCLA, and I have done Parliamentary and Oxford-style debates for ~6 years. I also have experience volunteering as an oratory, critical thinking, and debate coach for ~4 years. However, I have not debated in the United States' circuits. I have done a decent number of policy debates, however, I am not in a position to coach or judge those formats. From what I know about debate events in the US, I'd probably be most qualified to judge PF and LD.

Since I'm new to debate in the States, I may not be familiar with the following: spreading/speed, event-specific jargon, or topic lit. I'm aware of event rules and speech times.

As a debater, judge, or even a coach my focus remains on persuasiveness over technical truth. That's not to say that I disregard facts in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is a persuasive public speaking event. Therefore, I think definitions, persuasive argumentation, coherence/consistency, and teamwork are the most valuable skills in debate.

My view of debate is more focused on long-term portable skills and less on technical proficiency.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round or contact me at modisamarth@gmail.com

doop doop doop

Put me on the email chain if you're gonna do it. Email: js46497@wdmcs.org

I'm a senior at Valley. I do LD.

Novice specific:

I prefer novices to read lay/traditional cases. I get that winning rounds based on varsity arguments your teammates gave you looks good to your parents, but if you don't understand what you read, then you don't gain anything from it. Instead, I think novices should focus on the basics of debate: good argumentation, being able to think on your feet, doing your own research. If you can actually understand your really technical Berardi case and it's something you actually want to read, then go for it. Otherwise, maybe don't.

If you're going to spread, try to spread well. Don't garble your words, speak clearly. If you can't do that, don't spread. Only spread if your opponent is cool with it.

All novices get 29+ unless they do something bad and by bad i mean defend racism or smth

PF specific:

I don't do pf so I will not know the topic literature. I have judged it a few times but I'm gonna judge it like an LD round because that's easier for me

You can call me a progressive judge, do theory and have an opposing framework and stuff (why do y'all not do framework debate? it's weird).

I'll vote on analytics, not everything needs to be carded.

This only happened once but if there's no impact weighing I will default to lives saved and look for who saves the most lives. *NOTE: I WILL NOT DO THIS IN LD*

General:

I don't care if you dress up or not, it won't affect my decision

Tech > truth. exception is if it's a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc argument.

Run what you want, but understand your cases before you read them, else i will be annoyed.

I won't flow cross-x unless you ask me to.

I'll say clear thrice. After that, I will stop flowing and just stare at you and let the judgment flow. if I say slow, it's not because you were unclear but rather that I am bad at flowing.

Things I like:

clear extensions with weighing. Specifically, I like hearing "extend this argument, here's the warrant"

tricks

phil

k's that my small brain can understand without learning

memey theory

Things I like less:

larp

k's with really big words that I won't understand without reading 13 doctoral theses in the subject unless you can explain SUCCINCTLY and CLEARLY

disclosure theory if it's not contact info

Time yourself, please, I'm lazy. I'm fine with you going a little over time to finish your sentence, but don't make it insane.

Use all your speech time. I see people not using all their time when judging novice debates. You can't get this time back, you might as well use it all. exception is if you're dominating/hitting a novice, in which case it's fine to sit down once you've hit all the important points.

Ask me questions after round, it'll help both you to become a better debater and me to become a better judge. I'll disclose speaks if you ask

I'll try to be lenient with speaks (especially for novices). Speaks will be decided based on how i feel

If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc., I will drop you and give you a L20.

If you can tell me your favorite Tech N9ne song, I will give you +0.2 speaks (no saying face off or -0.2 speaks)

if you tastefully roast the following people you get +0.3 speaks (no generics and nothing actually mean): michael meng, nate weimar, ashley seo, caedmon kline, shreya joshi, ria tomar

if you praise grant engelbert you get +0.4 speaks

call me what you want, especially if it's funny like "joe mama, third in his line, conqueror of Brennan in smash ultimate" (you are forbidden from using this specific name)

Just have fun and try to learn something.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for a long time with a lot of debates over time, but don't consider me a highly skilled varsity debate judge. I really prefer novice debates and slower, clear speakers. I am very good at keeping an open mind and a blank slate, so tell me how to vote, carefully follow the flow and we should do just fine. Thank you!

Hello! My name is Ria, and I've been doing LD debate for the past four years, graduating this year.

I prefer that you extend your arguments and explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. I think it's strategic to explain both how you are winning offense under your framework, as well as your opponents'.

If you have any questions about my judging preferences, please feel free to ask before the round. Good luck, and have fun!

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes