Hello! My name is Nicollette Crespin

I am experienced with debate so no need to worry I have debated Policy and public forum.

I am very lenient about how you decide to strategize your debate arguments.

The only things I am picky about are roadmaps and signposting, please I would appreciate it if it's organized and/or if it is very clear.

I don't take ad hominem remarks or arguments into consideration (please refrain from making the debate personal, address the opposite side as aff/neg)

I will take time but I encourage you to take your own time to get into the habit.

How I judge differs; most of the time it's based on

•impacts (how important this is/ be dramatic)

•how structured are your arguments ( I appreciate clear arguments)

•tech over truth v truth over tech.

>>>remember you are trying to convince me why I should vote for you (be as dramatic as you like)<<<

lastly, always remember I want the debate space to make you guys feel comfortable so any rude or mean remarks will be weighed in my judging.

And remember always have fun!

Hi there! Jasmeet here, she/her. I've spent the last three years debating. I have competed in CX, PF, and BQs. I've scored moot courts and judged debate rounds previously, so don't worry. I therefore know what criteria to use when judging a debate round. Let the debate be enjoyable, please!

Even though I'll constantly be keeping track of time, I would love it if you could also keep track of your own. Always include a roadmap of the material you plan to read. Additionally, remember to signpost.

If you show any disrespect to the team of your opponent, I will take points away from you.

Always remember the following:

1. Avoid showing disrespect.
2. Ad hominem arguments are not allowed; instead, stick to the topic of discussion and abstain from making personal attacks on anyone.
3. No disputes about sexual orientation, racism, or anything else connected!
4. Lastly but not least, HAVE FUN!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For CX:

1. Understand your case inside and out.
2. Understand the yearly resolution that is given.
3. Maintain communication with your partner. This is what greatly improves teamwork. (speaking from firsthand experience)
4. Avoid dominating your partner or speaking in a way that suggests you are rude during CX. Show respect.
5. I absolutely do not tolerate harsh or passive-aggressive behavior of any type. NOT AT ALL.
6. Ad hominem arguments are not to be used. Don't let anyone feel unsafe throughout the debate.
7. Whenever possible, try to stick to your goal or issue rather than wander into irrelevant arguments that will not at all help your position.
8. During the round, feel free to bring up any violation with the judge—myself, in this case. For instance, bring it up if you see someone using Google during prep time or at any other point throughout the round. A debate is never fair to anyone when there is a violation. PLEASE MENTION IT.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For PF:

I don't mind at all how you present your argument, as long as you can persuade me to cast my ballot in your favor. I don't have as much preference for PF as I do for CX because I think it's much simpler to make our points and lay them out there for our opponents to respond to without causing as much hassle in PF as it does in CX (I'm not saying which is better or worse because PF does not have many different kinds of arguments that CX has). Exactly how you strengthen your argument to get my support depends entirely on your team. Just be careful to stay on the right path with your side and never show disrespect during both the regular and grand crossfires. Please put some thought into your rebuttals. I feel the same way about PF rebuttals as I do about CX rebuttals. I LOVE CLASH in debate. Therefore, be sure to show respect and be well-informed about your position for the round. GOOD LUCK!

I understand that debating can be difficult at times, so please try to remain composed and give it your all! Best wishes and enjoy an amazing debate experience!

Thank You!!

I'm a coach so I'm looking for a debate that's engaging and shows an understanding of the format as well as the information. I don't care for spreading in Rookie and Novice as I think the focus should be on the material; tag-teaming on cx may reveal an unprepared or uncoordinated team, or it may show one debater over-power its partner. Use your prep time wisely.

LISA!!

pronouns: she/her

email: libarra0055@mymail.lausd.net   or lisaibarra0821@gmail.com put me on the email chain if any!

Just ask me for any preferences, there are not many lol. 

I am a current LAMDL debater but I'm new to judging! 

Don't be mean; that's mean. Spreading in constructive's is lit just make sure to break it down/highlight important args during rebuttals to make sure I've caught them! I won't interfere unless you're being blatantly offensive to the other team so don't be, but I'll give as much feedback as possible after round.

I like cross ex so make sure if it's your cx you're giving the other team a couple of seconds to answer before moving on to make use of everyone's time.

Just enjoy the round and try your best and you'll be good!!!

i prefer to be called caleb so pls call me that!

No clue why it still has my deadname on my judge paradigm, but please refer to me as Andres or just my last name (pronounced Jobe).

Email: jobbravodebate@gmail.com (they/he)
Affiliation: Bravo Medical Magnet '24 / UC Irvine '28
I am happy to answer any questions you have before and after the round.

____________________

TLDR; Run whatever you want as long as you follow the structure of the argument and do not be a menace to people. Please give me judge instruction, tell me why everything you're saying is important. Speak clear and loud and ask me if I'm ready to hear your speech. I only vote based on what I have on my flow paper, which means you MUST let me know what you're saying. Don't cheat and bring in new arguments in later speeches, I will take off speaker points. PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM A JUDGE WHO IS VERY VERY VERY VERY KEEN ON FAIRNESS AND FOLLOWING THE RULES. Your speaker points start at 28.0 and go up or down based on your performance throughout the round. Have fun!!

_____________________

Long Paradigm:

Although I enjoy watching specific types of debates, I will still evaluate any arguments that you run; feel free to run CPs, DAs, T, K's, K-Affs, soft left, big stick, etc. However, I will not vote for you if you are racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ ableist, derogatory, or rude. If any of you degrade others or me at any point of the debate(before, during, or after the debate started), I will give you an auto-L, lowest speaker points available, an extremely long lecture, and will contact your coach. I trust you to be good people.

_____________________

Speaker Points:

The baseline for speaks is 28.0. It will go up depending on your ability to perfect the Holy Trinity: Format, Performance, and Technicality.

1. Format: follow the format of the arguments I gave you above. Follow the time structure of debate. This should be the easiest points to win and would give you a decent.
2. Performance: have clarity, have a good tempo and speed, BE PASSIONATE WHEN SPEAKING. This also means that when you're speaking you must be confident, and not pause a lot in the middle of your speech because you're not sure what else to say. This also means you MUST use all of your speech time or else it shows unpreparedness. KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME.
3. Technicality: The hardest thing in the world for debaters apparently. This means: NOT DROPPING ARGUMENTS, ANSWERING ARGUMENTS EFFECTIVELY, CALLING OUT DROPPED ARUGMENTS, DOING IMPACT CALC, JUDGE INSTRUCTIONS, OVERVIEWS, EFFECTIVE LINE BY LINE, ETC.). I weigh this above the other 2 standards, which means if you do poorly at this you will probably expect your speaker points to NOT be higher than a 28.1 and be around the 27.2-27.8 range.

Things that will drop your speaker points (that don't fall under Holy Trinity):

• Typing when it's NOT prep time (sending docs, bathroom break, etc.)
• Still talking after speech time is over (I will tell you when I permit cross ex after time is over)
• Card clipping (plz highlight your cards)
• Reading new cards in rebuttals (with the exclusion of 1nr)
• New arguments in the neg block and beyond

_____________________

Preferences For Rounds (1-10 scale)

Soft-Left Policy vs. K: 3/10 Eh not the best debates I've judged

Soft-Left Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 love it, wish I saw more of these

Big Stick Policy vs. K: 6/10 More interesting clash and the impact debate is most interesting

Big Stick Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 policy v. policy is cool

K-Aff vs. K: 5/10 hit or miss with this ... pls pls pls only run Ks if you know how to run them

K-Aff vs. Policy: 10/10 I love creative debates, they offer refreshment in my judging career

Counterplans:
NEG: I will not vote on or evaluate CPs with no CP text. that being said, feel free to run a CP, BUT you must have a CLAIM and a WARRANT as to why it's better than the aff. You want to prove to me that you have a net benefit the aff can't access and show that you solve better. Often times, debaters either get lost in the permutation debate and ultimately doesn't give the judge a clear story on how the CP works and how it interacts with the aff plan. If the affirmative calls you out on dropping permutations, I will weigh it against you and it will make it very hard for me to vote for you on the CP.
A lot of neg debaters I've come across are confused on the CP structure, so I'll give it here. I will NOT give you good speaker points if you can't abide by basic debate structure.

AFF: I want to see a permutation at the top of my CP flow in the 2ac. Extend it until the end. I enjoy it when an aff team runs multiple permutations and only go for 1 perm in the 1ar. If you drop the permutation and don't have any good defense against the CP and the neg team calls you out for it, I will most likely vote neg (given that they've explained what it means to drop the perm)

_____________________

Disads:
For the sake of my sanity PLEASE have IMPACT CALC. This goes for both aff and neg.

NEG: Follow the structure of a DA: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. If I don't see this structure on my flow, it will be hard to want to vote for you. If you're using the DA as a net benefit to the CP, I want to hear the distinction or I will not put it on my flow. If the affirmative calls you out on not including all the components of the DA/drop your arguments, I will ultimately believe that the affirmative does not trigger the impacts of the DA.

AFF: please respond to all components of the DA and do impact calc. PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE AGAINST THE DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________

Theory/Topcality:
I love theory and topicality, IF done right. If you're running T when the other side clearly doesn't violate, I will not appreciate it. Even if you're using T as a time skew make it somewhat relevant and interesting. I don't vote on Disclosure Theory unless I see valid proof / the tournament rules say so.

NEG: If you're going to go for theory please extend all your points and belabor the reason why it's a voter for education and fairness. I need a card provided to support your interpretation for whichever word you're defining.

AFF: Counter-interpretation need a card. RVI get out of here

_____________________

Kritiks/K-Affs:
NGL getting kind of boring here, I'm very tired of debaters running Ks without knowing the literature and the structure of the K. I would prefer if the neg team sticks to policy negs if you're certain you can't make a K interesting to me in this debate round.

NEG:

• I don't like Cap K but I'll still vote on it!
• As a native/indigenous debater who ran a bunch of set col performance k's and k-affs... pls try not to read set col unless one of yall identify as indigenous, especially if the alternative is to embrace some sort of indigenous praxis.... I get really uncomfortable hearing people read over experiences of indigenous folk for the sake of having an argument
• I don't like Postmodernism...........
• Every other K is good as long as you have proper framework and have specific links, I don't think the alternative has to be valid for the neg to win on K-- just need to prove aff links and make squo uniquely worse

AFF:K-Affs w/ no plan text or advocacy statement pls no...... must have some form of advocacy or clear goal thank youuu. What I said for the neg applies here!

my name is jun kwon. i am 5'4 and i live in overland park, kansas. i play soccer and i am on student council. i do some volunteering work around my community. i occasionally walk my dog. i am at chipotle at least a couple times a week to support my local small business.

"I will not flow more than the first 13 pages of your speech doc. If you are going any faster, you are actively harming clash." - Sahil Jain

if you ask for a 30, i will give you a 30. debaters must feel safe. me saying no makes the space unsafe, which i would prefer not happen on my watch.

i strongly dislike debating. i suck at debate and you shouldn't pref me if you want a fairly adjudicated round with flow-by-flow technical evaluation. i will vote on whichever speech sounds better between the 2nr and the 2ar. if the 2ar answers every argument with negative ethos whereas the 2nr drops everything but sounds like they know what they're saying, then i'll happily vote negative.

i will not be flowing. why would i. make your speeches sound so good and convincing that i'll have a transcript engraved into my head without cheating and taking notes on lengthy paper. i err on the side of environmental sustainability. using up paper to flow boring rounds angers me and i would prefer that more judges actively add this to their paradigm.

off cases are largely problematic. i would prefer no off cases in the 1nc and 8 minutes of case debating. by the 2nr and the 2ar, case debating becomes washed and there is often little impact comparison. not that these things matter, since i'll vote on how good you sound, not whatever you say in these speeches.

i am not good for the k. i am not good for counterplans. i am not good for disadvantages. i am not good for topicality. i am not good for impact turns. i am not good for theory.

i am good for asking for draws. that's about it.

CP: if you read counterplans, i would prefer to end the round when the 1nc reads the cp text. i will reluctantly follow the debate if you kick out of it by the 2nr. but that wouldn't work either because i belive that all advocacies must be unconditional. but that also makes me really disappointed because i would prefer heavier case debating over advocacies of any sort.

K: if you read kritiks, i would prefer that you give 6 minute overviews and spread through buzzwords. if i hear any words like ontology, hauntology, assumptions, interrogation, heuristics, and state-engagement-bad, i would be very comfortable voting for you even if any of your link arguments make little sense. however, make sure you sound good doing it. do not try to out-tech your opponents, it is a waste of your time.

T: if you read topicality, i would prefer that you simply do not. i prefer that interpretations are older, since it means that the source has survived the test of time. think of it like this. a recent interp had less time to have indicts written against it, while interpretations from the 70s have had 50+ years to be disproven. i find limits, ground, and predictability to be largely confusing. i prefer 2nr's that devolve into reasonability and interp precision. i will vote not vote for an interp unless the author has received a phd from a T20 school according to us news rankings. but of course, if you don't sound good, none of this matters.

theory: conditionality is an existential threat to this activity. i largely think advocacies themselves are existential threats to this activity. if you choose to add an advocacy to the 1nc, think. why would you do this? if the answer is anything other than "you're right, jun, let me take this out," then i won't be amused and your speaks will be capped at 14.5.

i find lazy debates to be the best. taking a long time to send out docs, stealing prep, and taking 4 minutes to start cx makes me really happy. it gives me time to use my cellular device during rounds and listen to a song by Taylor Swift's new 1989 album, which actively gives me more serotonin than judging a round ever could.

if you do LD or PF, i simply will not pay attention, no matter how good you sound. the only other event I'm willing to pay attention to is big questions. either policy/big questions or nothing.

if you spread, expect a 20.7. the slower you speak, the higher your speaks will be.

let me know if you have any questions.