Background:

Hello guys! My name is Reena (she/her/hers) and you can refer to me by name or by “judge,” whatever is the most comfortable for you. I have a local policy debate background from High School and have judged Public Forum, British Parliamentary, and American Parliamentary debates. I study computer science and psychology at Johns Hopkins University and have a basic understanding of most fundamental tech and bio-related issues and ethics.

You can reach me at reena.assassa@icloud.com for any questions about the round/RFD, as well as for sending evidence cards and additional case material (make sure to add me to the email chain!)

Preferences & Rules:

1. Generally prefer stock issue policy debates with a straight-forward line of reasoning and strong links for each subtopic/voting issue provided to the debate.

1. I want to see engagement between the two teams that go beyond shallow rebuttal (ie: instead of just listing the reasons as to why the other team is “not true” or “no solvency,” but rather provide as to why your side is additionally the better/morally ideal side to vote on.

1. I will attempt to flow at the agreed-upon pace established by both teams in the round, but I am rusty in flowing high-speed spreading and have a strong preference for 350-wpm max debates. Additionally, if you are spreading at an incomprehensible pace, please bare with me and I will attempt to flow as much as possible, but there is a high chance I will not catch everything that you have said. I will say “slow” or “clear” up to 3 times, and if this is not adapted it will reflect in my RFD.

1. As already established by other Johns Hopkins University judges: “if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, I will drop you. No exceptions” - Tim Do

1. Please be respectful to both me and your opponents at all times before, during, and after the debate. I despise snappy or shallowly hostile attitudes displayed during a round. Debate (and in my opinion, especially policy debate) should be an educational experience for every judge and debater, and misguided malice is absolutely not tolerated in this space.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with neg Ks but am generally not well-versed in k vs. k or k aff rounds. I will judge any round if thoroughly explained enough (if you can cut through the jargon and unnecessary complexities then I will be happy to flow the round in any direction the teams have decided on.) There is a possibility, however, that if you are not explaining all aspects of your k arg I could confuse your point or be biased towards the policy; so please be wary in how you approach these rounds.

DAs:

If you are running a DA make sure to not only prove the DA but to analyze and weigh why the DA is on balance more harmful than all of the beneficial impacts provided by the opposing team.

Counterplans:

High pref for counter plans that fully solve for the aff and are related to the resolution. It is up to the debater’s judgment to determine whether or not their alternative is better than what is provided by the aff, but I need substantive reasoning as to how the counterplan’s world solves each issue provided by the aff as well as not deviating so far from the resolution that the plans are no longer comparative to a well-informed individual/debater/judge. I do enjoy counterplan rounds but I will set a reminder that it is the neg’s burden to not only provide their line of argumentative reasoning for their counterplan but to also disprove all solvency provided by the aff or establish why their solvency is inherently better/morally ideal.

Topicality:

I’ll judge topicality in the same manner that I would judge every other argument in a round. I do not have a preference for either side’s interpretation of the resolved, but I do believe the aff should provide a clear outline of their interpretations early on in the round. I will judge topicality violations through the lens of the average intelligent individual and am very unlikely to buy far-fetched interpretations/definitions over the more obvious/clearly defined interpretation.

Theory:

I am not well acquainted with theory args. There is a high chance that I will be unfamiliar with the language being used in the debate, and if your case is not perfectly clear on every aspect of your explanation I will have trouble being an objective and well-informed judge for these rounds.

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 Sarah Bassil. I have been involved in debate for many years in various capacities as a debater, judge and coach. I have no preferences on the pace of your speaking so long as it is comprehensible. In efforts to be efficient, I have put together a simple list of my judging preferences:

-Roadmaps are greatly encouraged

-Sources should not be from newspapers or journalist. They are inherently bias and therefore weaken your argument.

-Including impacts in the structure of the contentions is most important in a proper case.

-Unless your definitions differ greatly from your opponents, please do not waste both of our time by defining them.

-Please use all of your allocated time, even if it just to read through the subpoints/impacts.

-Respect in the round, especially during cross x/grand cross x, cannot be stressed enough.

-Good public speaking skills starts with being prepared and confident with your case. I highly encourage students to have memorized a least 20% of their case in efforts to ensure they have good/decent eye contact.

Debate is an activity where we learn and grow as students together, so come with a positive attitude. Feel free to ask any questions before/after the round!

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

I debated LD and PF in hs, APDA in uni. Currently studying applied math, biology, and computational medicine at Johns Hopkins

Pronouns: He/Him

Email Chain/Contact: ikhyunkim2138@gmail.com | Facebook

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quick Prefs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: For PF teams, I am comfortable with Ks, Theory, etc. just execute it well...please

1-2: K/LARP
3-4: Phil/T/Theory
5-6: Tricks (please just strike me)

It seems like there is a tendency to pref based on speaks given so here are some quick stats on that

LD

Avg Aff Speaks: 28.9
Avg Neg Speaks: 28.8
Avg Overall Speaks: 28.8
Side Skew: 50.575% Aff, 49.425% Neg

PF

1st Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.8
2nd Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.7
Side Skew: 42.500% Aff, 57.500% Neg (idek what's going on here tbh)

CX

Avg Speaks: 29.1

Last Updated: 10.22.2022

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defaults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I default to truth-testing

• I default to semantics > pragmatics

• I default to epistemic modesty but I don't mind using epistemic confidence; just warrant why I should.

• I default to competing interps. Feel free to run RVIs when deemed appropriate but warrant why I should err towards accepting the RVI.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• No matter what you do, please have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot else I will likely struggle in terms of framing the debate on both sides. Make sure you explain how your case functions in the round and explain why it's important through the ROB/J/S. That said, explain why we should reject/interpret the resolution differently.

• Aff, please respond to TVA as too many rounds with these types of affs have been lost because of a dropped interp or dropped TVA. Conversely, neg, please run TVA on these types of cases and it will make your work a lot easier if you win it. However, TVA is not enough for you to win the round.

• Cross is binding for me as I do believe that you can garner links/DAs off of the performance of either you and or your opponent even if your evidence says something else. That said, I'd like to emphasize that for these debates that the form of the evidence presented becomes far less restricted and there isn't some inherent hierarchy between them so don't disregard them.

• The permutation tends to be more awkward to both understand and evaluate in these debates so I'd suggest that you overexplain the perm to make it clear. This includes how you sequence the perm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Ks that only link to the aff’s FW and not to their advocacy feel awkward to me, so take that with a grain of salt.

• I default to perms being a test of competition rather than advocacy. You can try to change this, but you'll have to overexplain to me what it means for a perm to function as advocacy and clearly characterize the advocacy of the perm.

• PF teams, I love hearing Ks but only if they are well done. This means you should know what you are talking about and have a deep understanding of the literature you are reading. That said, please don't be a prick by reading a K in front of a team that clearly has no experience with progressive debate (just use your common sense, it's not that hard to figure this out).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T/Theory

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I don’t have defaults w.r.t. to voter questions such as DTD vs DTA, fairness/education being a voter, etc. It is YOUR job to tell me why your shell is a voting issue.

• I don’t particularly have an issue with RVIs. Feel free to go for an RVI, but I will need convincing on why you get them in the first place, characterize/construct it for me, etc.

• Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me. If the round becomes messy because of it, then your speaks will suffer.

• PF teams, while I am a supporter of theory in PF, please please please don't read shells unless there is/are an actual abuse story behind them. If not, your speaks will suffer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LARP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I generally am not a fan of conditional counterplans especially since I feel like the neg time skew arguments can be really strong. That said, I am fine with listening to them and will vote on them just please don't be dodgy by not clearly answering whether the counterplan is conditional or not.

• If the neg is running a conditional counterplan, I won't kick it unless it's clear that the counterplan is kicked. This means that just because squo is better than aff doesn't mean I default to voting neg if it wasn't made clear that the conditional counterplan is kicked.

• My position on perms is the same in LARP strategies as it is for Ks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• If you are comfortable doing so, feel free to message me on FaceBook or email me if you want to ask if I know your philosopher well. Otherwise, don't assume that I am well-read up on the specific philosophy that you're reading and do the work of walking me through with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tricks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... <- this summarizes my thoughts and feelings about tricks, take that as you will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Points of Interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Aff/Pro should have a speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Flight 2 should enter the room at Flight 2 start time.

• If both sides are fine with it, I’m fine with granting flex prep. Don’t be rude about it, or else your speaks may suffer. Don’t take too long flashing prep unless you want your prep docked along with your speaks

• Engaging with the tagline alone ≠ engaging with the argument or the card. This is a huge pet peeve of mine so please don't just engage with the tagline but engage with the internal warranting of the cards being presented. Cards don't exist simply to back up the claims made by taglines but they have within them their own layers of argumentation which is centralized by a thesis that links to the tagline. TL;DR respect what the authors are actually saying especially given that probably over 80% of your speech is their words verbatim.

• If your speech includes abbreviations or acronyms, please explain them first. Never assume that I know what they mean.

• While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, I will award +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

• I tend to make facial expressions that reflect how well I am processing an argument when it's being read i.e. if I am confused then I'll look confused and if I think the argument is good then my face will show this.I apologize in advance if my expressions confuse you; strike me if this is an issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concluding Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have any questions for me before the round starts about my paradigm, please ask after all the debaters are in the room so I don't have to repeat myself. Quick shoutouts/other paradigms that may be worth your time looking at of those who have influenced me as a debater, judge, and a person include Anne-Marie Hwang, Adam Tomasi, Sim Guerrero-Low, Michael Koo, Martin Sigalow, and Annie Wang I am more than happy to explain my decision whether it be in person after the round or through email/social media. Thanks for reading, good luck and have fun!

Hello debaters!

I'm a parent judge, I've judged 7 tournaments, so I am ok.

I do not have much experience on the debate topic so please make sure to explain everything very thoroughly. Please do not use too much debate jargon as I do not understand most of them.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments, because I will have a hard time understanding them.

I will try to be a tech>truth judge but please don't make things too unbelievable.

English is not my first language, so please talk slowly and clearly so I can understand you. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to vote for you off of it. Also, please signpost and make it clear whether you are talking about your case or the opponents' arguments. Make your speech easy to follow. This will make it easier for me to understand your points and vote for you.

If you bring up sensitive topics, have a trigger warning. Please also avoid bringing up politics, religion, race, etc. if it is rude or derogatory.

If you talk very fast or unclear, I will take off speaker points.

Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round and maintain a sense of seriousness.

Most importantly, I prefer confidence over anything else. Even if you don't know the answer to a question, present yourself well.

Good luck everyone!

GDS RFDs:

R1- voted neg, triggered presumption

R2- the aff had the only offense left

R3- novice round

R6- I voted for a fem k aff against 2NR cap k on no link and risk of aff method solvency in-round

Novice semis - I voted for neg case turns

Novice finals - I voted for a conceded disad

I don't know if people still read these, but if you are here welcome! This is updated for Georgetown Day School 2022.

email chain: uva234@gmail.com

People who's thoughts I generally agree with on debate: Gabriel Koo, Michael Koo, Sooho Park, Viraj Patel, Holden Bukowsky, Patrick Fox, Gabby Lea, Phoenix Pittman, Megan Wu, Evan Alexis, Khoa Pham

I have not been active in debate since the 2021 TOC where I coached and judged. I currently work as an economic analyst for Congress after graduating from UC Berkeley in 2020. Previously, I was active in debate for 8 years as a competitor/judge/coach in Texas and California primarily in national circuit LD. I will be admittedly rusty, but you will have my full attention and focus in round. I know nothing about the topic meta or what arguments are being run, but I am familiar with issues in the topic area. 

If you're doing prefs, I have no preferences for any kind/style of argument. As a coach/judge/competitor, I took a flexible approach in terms of k/policy/other kinds of arguments (You can read below the line to see what specifically I judged and voted for in 2020-21).

Things that will boost your speaks: specific and contextual k or DA links, good strategic decisions, quality evidence, logical advantages and link chains, clear impact calc and weighing, clear explanations of k concepts, taking strategic risks and all or nothing strategies like 26 minutes of framework/one off k or going all in on impact turns or something like condo in the 1AR.

Things that will make me unhappy: Poorly explaining arguments, reading bad evidence, long overviews, more than 3 condo, not collapsing as the round progresses, making me vote on arguments that don't make sense, being mean or dishonest in-round.

Be respectful of those in the room, and best of luck!

(Old paradigm below is LD focused, but left up for transparency)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*TOC 2021 running update*

(copied from megan wu's paradigm)

"given that toc is often the last tournament of the year/debaters’ last tournament, and also an unusually stressful tournament, i am happy to honor the wishes you may have about my rfd—i am happy to do anything from giving compliments instead of critique, to only sharing the decision with your opponent, etc. if you want me to do this, please communicate this to me before i begin with the rfd!

enjoy the toc experience—you deserve it!"

I work for the government--better explanations of inter-governmental processes or policymaking would be much appreciated.

R1, F2: Voted for Scarsdale ZS on their moral non-naturalism, intuitions good aff

R3, F1: Voted for Immaculate Heart BC on 1 condo bad.

R4, F1: Voted for American Heritage Broward EM on their contracts/internalism NC.

Conflicts: Garland (TX), Lindale PP, Westlake (TX)

Pref Shortcut: K: 1-2; LARP: 1-2, Phil: 2-4, T/Theory: 3-4, Tricks: Strike

If you'd like to see what rounds/who I've judged, how I voted, my side bias, average speak stats and what kinds of args I've judged, here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vs4kAHB-mdhbm7QInTPOX-Jp8KAZeO1s7WsGGX1m3fs/edit?usp=sharing

Past 2NRs that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: sgr-a1 PIC w/ korea NB, terror DA + case defense, queer pess k

sep-oct: T-"a", prison abolition k, disability pess k, anti-blackness kritiks [4 times], sortition cp and elections da, a multi-plank voting improvement cp and case turns, presumption

Past 2AR's that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: the aff itself [3 times]

sep-oct: AFC [:(], multiple dispo bad, vague alts bad, ableism independent voting issue on a spec shell, the aff itself [only once though *shockingly*]

I'm going back to (in an attempt to be a better listener in round): a) flowing on paper b) flowing what you say, not the doc c) re-tracing the round using relevant parts of the doc only after the round.

Speaks: I'll default to the tournament's speaker point scale if given, otherwise I'll start at a 28.6 and go up/down from there.

Things that will get you extra speaks:

---Writing my ballot in the 2NR/2AR.

---K 2NR's that have aff-specific links, use specific in-round issues to evaluate the debate, and generally explain the K well.

---Executing an aff-specific LARP strategy with robust argumentation.

---Explaining philosophy well. (I'll be super impressed with this specifically)

---A well-researched and well constructed aff.

---Strategic choices and concessions that get you ahead in the debate.

---Weighing

---An all or nothing strategy and winning it. Examples: a) the 2NR goes all-in on impact turns to the aff and nothing else b) the 1AR straight turns the 1nc's disads c) the 2AR only goes for their Kant framing and precluding all the neg's offense d) the 2AR goes for a 1AR discourse K

Things that will make me unhappy and likely lose you speaks:

---Poorly explaining arguments or reading bad evidence.

---Making me yell clear multiple times

---Going for everything in the 2NR or 2AR

---Making me vote on tricks, a random truth-testing argument, an RVI, or on a theory shell that doesn't pass the common sense test.

---Being mean or saying something awful in-round. [I reserve the right to intervene if what you said is truly awful]

---Long 2NR K overviews.

---Being overly reliant on blocks, or not utilizing the flow/issues that happened in-round.

Some thoughts I have on debate that reflect my thinking and may affect how I judge the round:

1] I prefer to hear smart, well-researched, good quality arguments. The bright line for this is whether or not a school administrator/sponsor would view debate positively after seeing/hearing the argument. This matters because all too often people are willing to vote on illogical, poor quality, or dumb arguments that reduce the value of debate as an activity. I would prefer that debate becomes a stronger and more vibrant activity, and to that end, I will strive as a judge to promote that goal.

2] At the end of the round, I want to only vote for arguments that I can explain back to the debaters. As a judge, I feel that this is only fair so that I can give a coherent RFD and not leave one or both debaters confused and/or angry. That means that in your 2NR or 2AR, you should explain the position/argument that you're going for well, in addition to winning the position/argument on a technical level.

3] Defaults I will use (in the absence of argumentation or being told otherwise):

Framing: Util

Competing Worlds > Truth Testing

Presumption: Neg

Theory paradigm issues: 1AR theory is legitimate, No RVI's, Reasonability, Drop the Argument

T paradigm issues: No RVI's, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater

Role of the Ballot: Vote for the debater who did the better debating.

Role of the Judge: To decide a winner, a loser, and assign speaker points if this is prelims.

4] While the 1AR or 2NR might be time-compressed or skewed strategy-wise, I believe that granting an RVI is not the right correction to make. Instead, reasonability and/or drop the argument make way more sense to me to correct the abuse incurred by skews or frivolous theory shells.

5] I find that unless there is substantial demonstrated in-round abuse, I'm skeptical of voting on theory and tend to think that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the debater.

6] Evidence ethics is a stop the round issue. If a challenge is initiated, I will evaluate it and nothing else in the debate. A successful challenge will result in an L20 for the evidence offender, and an unsuccessful challenge will result in an L20 for the challenge initiator.

Old paradigm (that's still true, but was scrapped for length and being overly complicated): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxnud-Adkse3iBuHL3LW6WOx-tPHHxUHGVLSLpjTSO0/edit?usp=sharing

Email: oddoye.sean@gmail.com

Experience: Speech (Varsity DI and Extemp.); 2 years, HS LD (NJFL); 2 years, College parli (APDA and BP); 2 years.

1. I competed in circuit LD in high school, however that was a few years ago, so I am a bit rusty, however, I do keep a good flow.

2. Again, since I am a bit out of practice, I'd prefer if you don't spread if it's not necessary (if you are going to spread, just slow down on the tags, if I'm having trouble keeping up I'll raise my hand or say "clear"). Additionally, I value narration and explanations over quick technical blips -- make sure I know what I'm voting for.

3. Please weigh comparatively and clash with each other, win your warrants and explain why your evidence or standards are better.

4. I'm more used to traditional debates, I can count the number of times I've read a theory shell/ks on one hand, as such, I'm most comfortable judging traditional value/value criterion/contention or plan/counterplan debates. The same thing goes for tricks, LARPing, etc-- absent some sort of detailed and comprehensive explanation, I probably won't know what's going on or how to adjudicate lol.

6. If I've missed something, or if you have any other questions, just ask me.

Have fun, and pref/adjust accordingly : )

Hi everyone! My name is Viraj Patel (virajsunnypatel@gmail.com), currently a third year law student at Temple University. I debated for McDonogh four years in high school between 2010-2014. Throughout high school I ran and saw all different types of arguments, so I'm down with heavy policy to K and performance. This is my first tournament of the season. 

It's been a while since I've seen a debate or heard anyone spread, so please bear with me! 

I feel like I try to have my judging philosophy tend towards the standard. I value substance and clash, don't just tell me why your ideas are good - tell me why your ideas are better than the other team or why their ideas are bad. Cross-ex is very important, and the other team's answers and conduct can be a source of arguments like links to a K. I think arguments that interrogate sources are persuasive (if someone is telling me that US military hegemony is good should it matter that they're citing evidence from thinktanks that are funded by military defense contractors?). Use the warrants of your evidence! 

Please be clear on the citations of your cards (author + year), it will help my flow. In rebuttals, I find it hard to flow long overviews and then figure out later on how it applies to specific arguments.

Not the biggest fan of theory. You all do so much research to learn about the topic, please don't make me decide the round on some conditionality or no fiat arguments. If a team does something that is just a blatant violation of norms and rules then I will dock speaker points, and the other team should definitely raise the issue in which case the team in violation will almost certainly lose.

Topicality is ok, still would like a more substantive debate if possible. If a team is running a plan that is a clearly not topical, then by all means run the argument. If the neg is running like six or seven off case arguments for time/strategy purposes and the 2A doesn't handle topicality so well, I am not going to vote for T if the plan is reasonably topical but the aff just poorly argued T in the round. 

At the beginning of a round we can all agree on the basic procedural rules - keeping track of prep time, clipping cards, etc. 

Please no time stealing. Play by the rules! We will deal with any issue as it comes up and I will try and exercise my best judgment in round to maintain fairness and competition. 

Remember, you are debating for the judge. Like I said, this is my first tournament of the season and first time attending a policy debate tournament in quite some time. I will do my best to keep up, but please understand that I will not know the acronyms and jargon associated with this year's topic. Part of successfully persuading me will involve holding my hand and explaining some of the complexities of issues because this will be my first time hearing about them.

Please treat each other with respect. Let's have fun! 

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

Back in the day, I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in New York City. I traveled across the nation debating every weekend and attended debate camp each summer. I am well versed in speed, flowing, and all aspects of policy debate.

I prefer a clean, easy to fand low and follow round. Please write my ballot for me. Crystalize and weigh at the end clearly tell me why I should vote for your team.

I am familiar with the topic as I am also the parent of a current policy debater.

Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!