Gosh, I needed to update this...

I'm a long-time coach with a lot of policy debate experience. I pay attention to what's going on and try my best to meet you at your level. I've judged every weekend this season.

Include me on the email chain please - charrier@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional approach to debate - policy evaluation, dead bodies, uniqueness, etc. Not ruling out other methods, I'll listen intently, but it might be more of a roll-of-the-dice.

Disclose in a fair and honest manner, adhering to Kant: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

Noteworthy items:

(1). K vs. K debates leave me confused. K vs. Policy makes more sense, still not your dream K judge. K's of institutions and methods make more sense than K's of in-round whatever. If you are winning a framing issue, tell me why it matters - how does it interact with impacts?

(2) T/Framework. If there is a plan that's even in the ballpark of being topical, don't make T your 2NR strategy. If there is no plan, my ears are much more sensitive to T. But again, not ruling that method out either.

(3). Embedded clash. I'll do my best but I'm going to do the least work for both teams possible. Back in my day, we mocked the lump-and-dump teams without mercy and I still carry that bias. Times change, I'll do my best.

My hope is that you will have enjoyed Debate so much that you will be a lifetime supporter of the activity.

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@urbandebate.org 

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have minimal experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the NATO topic touches on a lot of issues that I've either debated before or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

Add me to the email chain: ferrisi2002@gmail.com

Graduated from Mamaroneck, Debated in High School for 3 years.

I'm basically good with anything as long as its explained well.

Dropped arguments are true arguments

Tech > Truth

Just be respectful and have fun.

Yes, email chain or speechdrop are fine. brayden.king99@gmail.com. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to email them to me and I will try to respond as promptly as possible.

If there are questions you have before round that aren’t answered in this paradigm, then feel free to ask!

Background information:

Lee’s Summit High School (MO) 2017

Missouri State University 2021 (NDT/CEDA and NFA LD)

I did debate all throughout high school and college with nearly all that experience in policy debate. My high school circuit was more on the lay side, whereas collegiate competition was not so much. I competed in NDT/CEDA tournaments for my first two years and NFA LD throughout.

I want to be able to be lazy in judging, so give me clear impact calculus and overviews, and be sure to follow the flows.

General opinions on debate:

tech over/equal to truth unless the arguments are clearly false or incredibly skeptical, e.g. that structural violence is good.

It’s a game, and there are some rules to that, particularly in H.S., but that doesn’t inherently mean you need to follow them. You can make arguments and give reasons as to why some of the rules may be bad and shouldn’t be followed. E.g. Planless affs- there are many reasons why not upholding U.S.F.G. action is bad (and many why it is). I think these are debates that can be had. Clash and standards are key here, but don't just spout "fairness and education", especially if it's in a rebuttal. I will hold to you explaining why those are good and the impacts to them.

I probably won't have any problems with speed, but if you’re too fast or unclear, then I’ll let you know.

Policy things:

I lean on the side of extinction outweighs on impact magnitude, but good impact calculation can sway me otherwise. Especially if there was significant work done on reducing the link and/or internal links to extinction. I weigh magnitude, time frame, and probability evenly. If one side explains why extinction-level scenarios are impossible or almost impossible and the other side just says, but extinction outweighs, then the ballot will go to the former.

Impact calc is super important, so please do some!

Please explain how your CP/DA/case turns interact with the affirmative’s case and vice versa. Having a clear link and internal link chain is paramount to effectively weighing your arguments in the rebuttals.

CPs don’t necessarily have to solve all of case if the net benefit outweighs, but you should still tell me why that’s important, and make that argument yourself.

PICs are probably good, but can be abusive and, in the round, I will try to have a blank slate on the theory debate.

K things:

Clash is key. Link and perm debates are a mess if you don't know what the alternatives are or how they interact with each other.

PIKs can be legit, but there better be good explanation on why and how.

Impacts matter! Be sure to explain how to view and weigh them.

Form and Presentation:

Generally, I evaluate speaker points on how well the arguments were presented, explained, etc and less on just sounding pretty. While sounding good is still important, I would prefer a more in-depth explanation of your arguments. I come from a very lay background, but wasn't really a fan.

Be respectful! Debates that get excessively aggressive towards a team or specific individuals in round are not fun and are not things I want to see. Win the debate by out-debating the other team, not by trying to make them look bad. I WILL dock your speaks if you act indecently. 

Policy Debate Coach

North Star High School, Newark, NJ

Former policy debater, volunteer judge, now first year policy-focussed coach with novice team. I am relatively inexperienced as coaches go and judge primarily in JV and Novice as I become more experienced. I am comfortable in policy and PF but not yet in LD. I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernable, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

I can be considered a traditional, stock issue, legal model judge. I am comfortable with tightly reasoned arguments in this context that make small, detailed distinctions that the speaker understands and communicates clearly. I expect to hear explanations about how the arguments impact the flow and overall balance of the debate. Simply stating an argument will not carry the flow; you need to tell me the relevance of the argument to the debate overall.

I am receptive to most counter-plan, topicality and theory arguments if you can reasonably explain why they are relevant. If you spread these arguments, however, I will not follow them. If the argument is novel or on the edge of policy theory, you need to explain your reasoning in a more detailed but understandable way. I am less experienced with kritiks so the need for explanation of relevance rises but I am receptive to reasonable arguments. I appreciate well devised analytical arguments that survive direct clash.

I appreciate clever, creative arguments within the traditional framework that demonstrate the speaker’s understanding of the topic. I also reward demonstration of listening skills reflected in a clear, hair-splitting clash of arguments (and clash, in general). Signposting is important to me, given my experience level. The ability to bring arguments to a succinct and pointed summary will also be rewarded.

Speaker points…28 is average clarity, clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will not go below 26.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Email: cydmarie.minierciriaco@saschools.org

Coaching Experience:

Policy Debate Coach/Network Coach @ Success Academy (Present)

Coached Parliamentary Debate @ Inwood Academy for Leadership (2017-2021)

Hi everyone! I am very excited about coaching and judging policy debate this year! Although this is my first year coaching and learning policy debate, it is certainly not my first time coaching or judging competitive debates. Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. I value CLARITY over speed. Project your voice and speak at a reasonable pace.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing.

3. I pay close attention to the rebuttal speeches. Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. Personally, I have to adapt more to K AFFs. I find K AFFs to be very unique and interesting (when done right), but often find them difficult to judge when I realize students state a lot of complex rhetoric without fully understanding its meaning.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being.

7. Take advantage of your cross-examination periods. Ask your opponent specific, meaningful questions. Try not to waste your C/X time asking clarifying questions.

8. Don't just read a bunch of cards and not thoroughly explain them. I shouldn't have to do the work that you are supposed to do.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

4 years experience as a debater in high school, LD.

2 years experience as a coach for policy debaters, middle & high school. (presently coaching.)

I currently coach the policy debate team at BASIS DC.

would like to be on email chains for case files: Messai.yigletu@basised.com or messaiyigletu@gmail.com

if you are reading this, that means I will be hearing you debate pretty soon! good luck and take a minute to read a few important points that will help you in this debate.

Arguments/Debate

not usually a fan of spread/speed but can keep up if I have case files & you read taglines.

would like to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

fine with K as long as it is clearly explained and set out in the speech. not guaranteed that I will have prior knowledge, especially if using non-topical k so make sure to give a detailed/clear explanation.

impact calculus & addressing all arguments are key winning points for me

do not assume I will automatically indicate drops in your favor, if opp drops any arg/does not address, you as the debater are responsible to mention that in a speech. similar expectations for extending arg., all args should be extended throughout the debate by both sides.

speaker points are awarded basis on quality of speeches, time usage, and clarity.

keep it respectful, especially during CX. intensity and passion are fine and even encouraged, but never make it personal/attempt to take it to a point of disrespect.