For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. The last two years I have judged for my daughter’s middle school team.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. Most impact scenarios that we advocate in policy debate are laughably absurd. Everybody knows this. With the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to assign "zero risk of a link" to many advantages and disadvantages. The "political capital" disadvantage is often particularly susceptible to such presses.

I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking. Once again, with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and is in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be a very compelling argument to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

I am a technical judge over traditional. However, be persuasive. Do not assume I know what you know. Make definition, provide a framework, and no jargons pls.

Evidence needs to be clearly reliable. Clear impact are important. Overall, I am looking for logical reasoning with a cohesive flow. Organize and internalize your speech. Do not repeat exactly what was mentioned. That will not earn you extra points. Build upon your contentions, and forge strength on your arguments.

Debate is a team sport. So work and win together as a team!

Summary and Final Focus: Don't list everything. Intensify your defense, summarize your arguments, and finally, weighing is a must but make it clear!

I really dislike speaking more than your allocated time. No spreading pls.

Be respectful of one another.

If it is virtual, your cameras need to be on at all time unless otherwise instructed.

Best of luck!

Hi I am a parent judge:

I would like it if you didn't speak fast and spoke clearly

Also I don't like it when people talk over each other in cross

I wish both teams good luck in the debate

• High school public forum debater
• Did middle school parli for 2 years
• Don't do long intros about your name/school/side/favorite color it's on the ballot for a reason
• No repetitive/assumed framework (if resolution is on balance don't say framework on balance) - you also don't need a framework -however if you feel that the resolution is too biased, and both teams come to a consensus on framework, I may vote off of the framework > resolution (but make this very clear in weighing)
• Time yourself/your opponents
• I love POIs + heckles but they have to make sense to earn points
• Use your time efficiently - forfeiting time will lead to point deduction
• Road maps should be integrated in your speech - no off time roadmaps
• Speeches should be cohesive between speakers - I want the flow to flow
• Weigh! Talk about clash! Make it easy for me to vote
• Scoring between 5 and 15 (you must use time efficiently in order to get >10)
• I believe in low point wins speaking ability ≠ debating ability

he/him | i do pf at langley high school

treat me like an average tech judge, though i've come to realize i put a premium on good, consistent warranting in the back half -- i have no qualms about dropping an argument in the second final focus whose warranting is brand new or, depending on the severity of the violation, the team reading it. this probably means i'm not the best judge for a final with a very late breaking new spin, but if you think it's your only path to the ballot go for it. i start with weighing so do a lot of it and break the clash on link-ins or i'll be forced to do it for you

1. bottom line do whatever and send constructive and rebuttal docs to debate.vishwarakasi@gmail.com
2. speed is all fine but again i'll prob need a doc
3. i am not supes experienced with Ks but i'll try my best--explain a lot tho
4. theory defaults are up for debate but I start with DTD, CI > reasonability, no RVIs
5. i dont love aggro debate, be nice pls and you'll get speaks bump
6. varsity debaters should probably be able to handle varsity arguments
7. give me song recs after for speaks boost depending on how much i like it :)))
8. ask questions after round or email
9. discriminatory = drop
10. have fun!

I competed in PF for 4 years for Whitman.

Likes:

Strong warrants, common sense, narrative, weighing, analytics, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, nuanced/creative arguments, frontlining in second rebuttal, slow final focus, actual clash

Dislikes:

Squirrelly arguments, progressive args/framing/theory, speaking really quickly, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, new offense after rebuttal, rudeness/making things personal

I’m a lay judge, explain everything clearly and with warranting. If you read theory or k’s I most likely will not know how to evaluate it.

truth>tech

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)