TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 1
2022 — NSDA Campus, US
Lincoln-Douglas (Varsity) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LAMDL. Previous affiliations don't really matter as of now.
I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+
Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.
What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?
I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell.
As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it.
I lean neg on condo, go for whatever cp you want, and I love well articulated theory arguments. Key words Well Articulated.
If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.
Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating
Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 1L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Add me to the chain at firstname.lastname@example.org. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!
TLDR paradigm: Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; I don't gut check "bad" arguments; I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; I feel like this goes without saying but I will not vote on something I don't understand; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by); I enjoy analytics more than empirics; I love tricks, but I think they're only pedagogically valuable for their ability to boost critical thinking other than that they're generally just for funzies and potentially bad for debate; due to the nature of my paradigm and the debates I typically judge because of it please read the fourth point in the general section as well; lastly my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.
- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing
- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)
- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification
- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.
- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)
- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you
- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation
- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)
- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly
- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear
- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings
- flex prep is cool
- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)
- there are only a few norms I think are pretty true; among them are judge intervention bad, no new 2ar arguments, and normal speech times (although these can easily change and I'm coming around to new 2ar args as the default; idk it's complicated)
- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)
Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):
Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)
LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)
Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):
Phil/High Theory- 1
note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference
- Love these please know what your own plan says though
- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine
- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of
- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough
- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate
- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)
- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on
- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)
- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you
- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better
- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)
- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate
- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument
- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack
- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing
- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)
- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author
- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld
- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under
- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense
- KvK is cool
- poems/music/art/performance is offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)
- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)
- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad
- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning
- please don't read links that you yourself link into
- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links
- I love seeing the extrapolation of these as linear das in the 2nr
- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring
- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves
- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism)
- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad
- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool
- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way
- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense
- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing
- friv is fantastic
- please make them positively worded
- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets
- have them and extend them in the next speech
- screenshots/photos are the best
- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever
- the more the merrier
- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier
- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified
- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise
- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)
- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)
- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well
- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you
- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary
- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick
- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat
- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)
- I am persuaded by a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it is extended throughout
- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)
- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is
- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate like I would a nat circuit for a local
- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine
- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format
Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024
Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: email@example.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)
Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm
TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.
2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.
The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate
Top Level Stuff
1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.
2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.
3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.
4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.
5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious
6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.
7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.
8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.
9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.
10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks
29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.
29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right
28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics
28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.
28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.
27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly
<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).
Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.
Now on arguments
Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.
Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.
If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.
Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.
I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.
CPs and theory
I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.
States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also
Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.
I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.
I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine
Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.
I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.
FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.
I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.
Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.
I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible
The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.
I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.
Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.
From Seth Gannon's paradigm:
"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."
On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts
These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.
Reasonability = yes
I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.
I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.
I am a parent judge and new to be a judge.
Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.
I am a lay judge. This is my third year judging, and I have only judged at lay tournaments. I prefer that you speak slowly, but if you chose to spread it must be reasonably comprehensible. I support diversity and equal opportunity. Please make sure to respect each other and have fun.
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
(Just for Harvard: this pool is massive and there are so many schools where this is the first tourney they've competed at, IF YOU READ 1AC DISCLO OR ANY DISCLO AGAINST FIRST TIME DEBATERS I will drop you. That is seriously the most exclusionary practice ever and I am so tired of seeing it)
Hi a lot of you already know me but I'm Amanda, FSU grad. Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I currently am the assistant coach for Columbus High School in Miami, FL. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I've coached the FFL State Champion (2x), TOC qualled debater (they've done more but Im lazy). I also coach a highly competitive Public Forum team (they definitely are sm better then some of the stuff I hear in LD and sometimes I wish I judged more there).
QUICK hack sheet:
Traditional: 1/2 (just know that tech people are preffing depending on the list below)
LARP <3: 1
Tricks: 5 ( i strongly urge you to not read these in front of me, definitely am tired of being the subject of a discord chat after someone loses a round because they didn't read my paradigm)
Performance:2/3 (just add trigger warning if necessary! Im good with anything)
Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, and Crawford Leavoy.
Here is a list of things I used to get asked and now people just don't read my paradigm anymore (please at least read 1 and 6):
1. I've debate plenty of times on the national circuit, I've seen it during its highs and lows. PLEASE MAKE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE!
2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however, I need a clear articulation on how to do so.
3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it.
4. There is a difference between being witty and being arrogant. ZERO tolerance for disrespect in debate.
5. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person so don't say "it says". Please don't say "The judge believes x,y,and z."- you have no clue what Im thinking. Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being hella exclusionary) :)
6. I STRONGLY hate 1AC disclo. It is the one thing that will absolutely send me into a spiral if I hear that round one. The 1NC is a reactive strat, for the love of god don't complain if this is an issue of someone didn't properly disclo round reports. Seriously, the only thing we cared about when I debated was past 2NR's so can we just please learn how to actually debate. xoxoxo your friendly K judge.
Traditional- I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. A good friend of mine, Fiona Barry, was a phenomenal trad debater. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args.
LARP- I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh.
K's- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :))
Phil- I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.
Theory- I used to say theory debate was okay as I started to judge it more. I lied. Don't make this round a headache for me to adjudicate. I dislike when 5 shells are read with stat skew standards then is followed by a six page card dump on the aff flow. MAKE THIS EASY FOR ME. I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. By now I've realized that most kids sigh when they get me as a judge and they predominantly read theory, as long as you don't make it messy then I'll be fine lol. This is just a question of adapting, if you can't do that then work on it.
Tricks- This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly. I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.
Performance- I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.
Please add me on the email chain: email@example.com
Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.
You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.
I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. IMO you should be 15 mins early to your round
If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.
DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!
I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.
I air Tech/Truth
Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.
- If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks
2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks
5/6 - tricks, phil
Framework (Value/Value Criterion):
With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.
I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong link. Needs to have all components and please make clear the status of your counterplan in your constructive. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.
Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose - I do not want to vote on disclosure theory (esp round report) - so idk only run disclosure theory that makes sense.
I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.
I think new affs are good - I need like SUPER proven abuse to vote on new affs bad.
I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.
Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan.
Special Note on Cap K's
It is an uphill battle with me on the Cap K tbh. You can read it watch what you say. I have voted on lots of cap Ks before so its not impossible to get my ballot. I can not stand when you claim a country has successfully converted to communism when it has not in reality. I do think some countries have but I have had competitors claim Spain is a communist nation. Also when referring to failures of communism do not just say "South America" or "The Caribbean" . Further, do not conflate people who had to flee say Cuba to "All just slave owners" that is just not historically inaccurate and discrediting of the reality. TLDR: You can read it but you best be read up on communism and don't you dare try to say Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD.
Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.
Note on Politics DAs
I am a poli sci major and currently work on a campaign. I know politics so do not say something dumb that makes no sense.
I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does!
- Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
- I am super open to trix bads theory
- Just have a substantive debate. Please.
- Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
- some phil is cool
- I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig
I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.
I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.
I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.
These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.
I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you well. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.
If you use flex prep your bad at flowing
If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.
- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ NATO topic
Same as above
- Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
- I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
- I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad
- Same as LD
- Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
- I like numbering of args and clear signposting
Do whatever, have fun, make sense
Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Hi, I am a very new judge, and would appreciate it if you explained arguments thoroughly
Please add me to the email chain:
1. Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't spread. This will help me a lot when flowing and evaluating the round. I give the speaker points based on clarity.
2. I will evaluate the round on who persuades me that their side of the resolution is preferable, so try your best to give strong and compelling arguments,
3. Debate is for learning and gaining education, so please be respectful to me and each other.
Good luck in the round!
I competed in Lincoln Douglas throughout college. I look for evidence-backed arguments and competitors should ensure they engage in their fellow competitors' arguments and set precedence for any basis of an affirmative argument. Negatives should debate based on that precedence.
In addition to well-evidenced arguments, I want to hear why your argument matters and outweighs what has already been said and should be clearly articulated.
Finally, I look for a professionalism and decorum, where each debater stands on the strength of their arguments, and not simply relying on their speaking abilities.
Please keep the debate conversational and limit spreading. Also, please limit simply reading from notes; Im looking for the most adept speakers with a great command of the framework; persuading me that their value was superior and best illustrated their argument.
I'm Bennett Dombcik (he/him), I'm currently a junior @ the University of Michigan.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: if you explain arguments, do impact calc and card comparison, and don't make technical drops, you should be fine. The rest of the paradigm will attempt to explain what I think “good debating” looks like for a bunch of different positions. However, they are not rules to abide by for a round in front of me, and many of the more preference-based notes can be easily overcome by in-round arguments.
Policy Positions: This is the majority of what I did in both high school LD and college policy. I am most comfortable evaluating these debates.
Topicality---negatives should read definitions that are predictable. Affirmatives should do the same. The rest of the debate should compare the limits, ground, predictability, etc. of the two interpretations and explain why one impact is more (or less) important than the other and win a larger link to that impact. Caselists make me happy, the affirmative should probably not win for being topical, and the mandate of the plan is probably the best way to determine topicality (although can create solvency problems for the aff).
DAs---Links should be as specific to the plan as possible; generic links are not persuasive and easily beatable by affirmatives who know what their AFF does. However, smart 2NR contextualization of generics can overcome my affirmative bias in these debates (I just don’t really think negatives do that very often). The DA should ideally both have external offense that outweighs the case and turn the case. Turns case arguments are underutilized and massively increase your chances of winning the round.
Zero risk---clearly a thing. If the affirmative has a good uniqueness/link press I will be unpersuaded by “vote neg for .0001% chance of extinction” (same goes for aff try or die args against a good negative case push). Note the emphasis on good---it is hard to get to zero risk even though it is possible.
CPs---Fun. Should have solvency advocates (although those can be 1ac internal link cards). CPs should solve the case (for the most part), 2NRs should make detailed arguments as to why this is the case. Competition stuff: I have very few pre-conceived notions of what counts as a “legitimate” standard for competition. That being said, I will likely have more fun in the round if the competition arguments are more than just immediacy and certainty, which will be reflected in speaks.
CP theory---the 1AR should make args about the illegitimacy of various CPs (mostly an LD note). The 1AR is very hard and the 2NR is too easy if it doesn’t have to answer theory. On the flip side, I am very willing to hold the line on new 2AR arguments on theory, so 1AR arguments should probably be longer than a sentence.
---DTA---probably (unless condo)
---Reasonability---define what counts as reasonable and debate why that standard is good.
Case---1ACs tend to be bad. The 1NC tends to be bad at demonstrating why the 1AC is bad. Rounds tend to be better (and more favorable for the negative) when the case page is a larger aspect of the negative strategy.
---Impact turns---cool, no issues with any of them.
Ks: I did some of this in HS, pretty comfortable with what happens in 99% of these debates.
On the negative---do whatever, links should implicate solvency of the plan in some way. Willing to vote on debate should be about epistemological assumptions of the plan. The affirmative should invest some time in we get the case + case outweighs, and the negative should offer a predictable counter-interpretation for how the round should be evaluated. Winning ontology is very important for both teams.
On the affirmative---ontology stuff from above. Probably should be close to the topic, willing to listen to reasons why that’s not true but I think the negative’s framework arguments get a lot stronger when the affirmative doesn’t have a predictable counter-interp. Procedural fairness is probably good, so is clash. However, impact turns are definitely winnable in front of me, so do whatever.
Answering K affs---stuff from above. Negative teams tend to be pretty shoddy explaining the impact to fairness/clash/whatever else you want to go for. Defense to the aff case is important for winning framework arguments and answering impact turns. If you want to go for Ks against them K aff, explaining competition is probably the most important parts of the debate in front of me. (K vs K is probably one of the areas I’m least comfortable with given a lack of understanding on the interactions between competing theories).
Yes email chain: Averyadover@gmail.com
Please label your email chains; team names, tournament, round
Prep time ends when the email was sent
I have debated 2 years an Eisenhower High school
and 2 years at Maize High
And am now debating for the University of Mary Washington.
UK Digital 2022 Update
I have not judged many debates on this topic at all so I will not be familiar with acronyms or what DA's/ Solvency advocates are supposed to mean, so explain things.
Clarity - Especially in online debate
If I cannot understand you, im not just going to look to your doc, I think debate is a communication activity and will judge it as such.
Adrienne Brovero said this well in her paradigm, highlighting has become pretty bad. I think evidence quality matters way more than quantity. I am very receptive to pointing out flaws in arguments and bad highlighting. If you highlight word salad, I will judge the argument based on the word salad you read, and I obviously didn't understand.
The Debate stuff
I will vote for anything you want to read, if you are technically winning it on the flow. I have read a lot of weird arguments throughout my career, meaning that I am totally down to listen to whatever you want as long as it is not harming people in round.
Cross Ex: Im not strict do whatever you want as long as you are the "Asking team"
Ill go into specifics now
Its a voting issue, and I dont think RVI's are a thing.
I default to competing interpretations, but like everything else, you can persuade me otherwise. If you are going for T I need analysis on why this is important for my ballot. All to often I see debaters undercover or dont provide enough offense of topicality.
Kritiks: I will listen to them but do not expect me to know the nuances of how your K works, you are going to have to explain that to me. Planless affs need to tell me what my position in the debate round is along which how I resolve the problems.
Theory: More likely than not I wont vote for stand alone theory arguments, I think debaters should frame theory as a threshold or mitigation question.
FW: I lean towards resolutional action being good but I can be convinced otherwise.
I will vote on presumption
I love a good case debate.
I think circumvention is underrated, if deployed well, it can highly mitigate the case and provide offense on each advantage.
My favorite arguments in debate are case arguments and impact turns, and I have empirically been known to go for them. If the aff can clearly articulate how their aff interacts with the off case, it can mitigate the offense on the off case.
They are fine, read what you want, but I can be persuaded on theory arguments. The aff should be able to prove why the counterplan cannot solve the aff, and or why the perm is best.
This might sounds old school, but I think rampant conditionality, especially when contradicting is hurting debate. This is not me saying you can't read them, just a heads up that if deployed well, I will vote on conditionality is bad.
Impact Calc: This is incredibly important
You can't just tell me you are winning the debate, tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means to the debate if you win them.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round.
Archbishop Mitty ‘21
Wake Forest University '25
Been both a 2N/2A
Done both Policy and LD ( 4 years policy, 1 year LD )
I am a coach with the DebateDrills Club Team. Information regarding conflicts, team policies, and harassment reports can be found at Club Team Information. Should you have any questions or concerns, email firstname.lastname@example.org
Yes Email Chain: archbishopmittydr[at]gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”
I find paradigms to be largely useless because no one is ever transparent and 99% of times debaters and judges put way too much value into these things. I could care less about argumentative preferences -- I have coached, judged, and participated in debates where teams have gone for everything from Politics DA, Process CP’s, K’s, Trix, Phil NC’s to T. TLDR: Stick to your guns and you do you.
At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.
I guess I’ll do the thing about argument Preferences (although it would behoove you to stick to what you are good at). In the words of Debnil Sur “Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor”.
Speed: Fine -- just make sure you are clear (especially true in the context of e-debate). Yes I will have the doc open, but no I will not be flowing off it -- only what you say will be on my flow.
Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.
Paradigm Issues: I will almost always default to an offense defense paradigm -- if you argue about stock issues, I will most likely get bored.
Tech vs Truth: Seems like one of the most asinine things on everyone's paradigm. Obviously if you drop an argument or something on the flow it is considered true, but in a world where another team clashes with you Truth (argument/ev quality) becomes an important tie breaker.
Policy Affs: Do your thing. 1AC’s with 3 minute advantage and framing page is fine, but please do not just make it a bunch of probability indicts have some offensive framing in either an alternative understanding of ethics or a kritik of the way that impact calculuses are framed. Affs with as many impact scenarios stuffed together as possible probably have terrible ev that should be re-highlighted and pointed out.
K Affs: Not dogmatic about whether or not you follow the resolution. Make sure you have offense on framework that isn’t just you exclude our aff. I’m fine for impact turn or counter interp strategies -- just do impact calculus. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does. Neg teams debating K affs do whatever you think is best -- just remember impact calculus wins debates. Going for framework is fine, fairness can be an impact, but oftentimes it's a better impact filter, and having something external to fairness will be more persuasive. I've thought about this a little bit more now that I finished my first year of college debate and the 3 most convincing AFF turns to FW are 1] K v K debates good + offense about the model of clash they produce 2] An Indict of the performance of the Negative team that i should evaluate prior to the debate and proof of how violence gets naturalized in debate and 3] A critique of FW that articulates its relationship towards the history of debate and why the negative team shouldn't get to kick out of such baggage.
K v K debates are dope -- make sure you have offense on why the perm doesn’t shield the link.
Topicality: While freshman and sophomore year being my least favourite argument that I dismissed as negative teams whining, it has honestly become one of my favourite arguments in the activity. My senior year I was undefeated going for T-Substantial. I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating teams making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.
Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.
Disads: Yes -- Do them. Not sure what's a good topic DA on this year’s policy topic. I have a soft spot for politics DA with a thick link wall -- just do impact calc. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis that if conceded is just gg.
Kritiks: Despite my reputation as a K hack, I’m pretty agnostic here. My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc. That being said if you impact turn the K -- you can make f/w largely irrelevant. K teams should do more link turns case analysis -- it allows you to short circuit a lot of offense on the case page. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. If you are aff, your best bet is either to go for a big framework + Extinction outweighs push or just impact turning the K. Not the best for a team that wants to go for link turn and perm because I typically don't tend to find a net benefit to voting aff that the alt doesn't solve.
Theory/Trix: Not my favourite argument in the world, but I will vote on it. I’m pretty neg leaning on conditionality in traditional policy vs policy debates, but have heard some pretty fire kritiks of condo by some K teams. No real dispositions regarding anything else. Theory interps need to be impacted out and have a claim warrant and an impact.
Speaker Points: I’m gonna steal Debnil’s scale which makes a lot of sense to me.
“Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.
29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.
29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.”
Ev Ethics: Clipping will receive a 25 L. The team going for ev ethics needs recording as proof and must be willing to stake the round on it.
Any other alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team going for the ethics violation whether they would like to stop the debate and stake the round on it. In this case, like Debnil, I will let both teams offer a written defense of their practice and decide based on such defenses. This is important because I feel that this will disincentivize ethical disintegrity, while also letting the accused have a chance to defend themselves (especially when ev ethics has been weaponized against small schools using open ev or otherwise widely circulated ev cut by bigger schools that has a flaw that the debaters didn’t know when receiving the ev). If teams would rather let the debate continue (which would be my preference), I will evaluate it like I would any other theory debate.
Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
The defence isn't cohesive.
Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.
Be merry. Just do what you want.
Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.
As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.
There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
Defenses need to be made more expansive.
Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.
The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.
Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.
When judging an LD round I carefully flow the arguments and evaulate the persuasiveness of the arguments made. Please dont expect me to make your argument for you. Be polite. Explain why you have won the round, i.e., what are the determinative issues that settle for your position? I am well-read in philosophy so use references appropriately.
Speed/LARP is fine, I was a policy debater years ago so I can keep up, but don't just dump arguments and expect a dropped argument due to speed will win the round.
I am ok with spreading as long as there is disclosure
k's are ok
theory is ok
Make sure to extend your arguments, I will not do it for you
I wont count anything that's newly brought up in last speech
I'm a flow judge
if something isn't responded to its dropped
PLEASE COME ON TIME AND START THE ROUND ON TIME - we are all busy and don't want to wait 15 minutes for an email chain, speaks will directly reflect this preference, you will also get better speaks if you can end early or take less prep but please don't do so at the expense of speech quality
Mandatory things about debate so you know I'm somewhat qualified to judge
Debated for Lexington HS from 2018- 2022
Competed on nat circuit from 2019-2022, got 15 career bids, qualled to TOC junior + senior year, won a couple tournaments, deep elims of a handful of others (not that any of this actually affects how good judges are but I get why it's useful to know).
TLDR; run whatever you want, I'll evaluate it as best as I can, I wont refuse to evaluate anything and I will try my best to evaluate everything, below is mostly a list of familiarity with arguments and rants about debate
Trix - 2 (if you read actual warrants you are fine but I'm not gonna make the argument for you)
Phil - 2/3 (good if you want to actually debate, if you use it as an excuse to do trix debate but with less warranting I will be unhappy) please acc explain your phil some of it is dense
K- 3/4 (I'll try but I'm not great with it)
I have run most arguments from Deleuze K, to skep NC's, friv theory, Policy, and also debated at several local tournaments. That being said I mostly read theory as my A strat, tricks occasionally when I could, and policy and phil in other rounds
Please add me to the email chain email@example.com
I will flow any speed, but I reserve the right to say clear or slow 3x, after that point if I don't catch something I consider it to be on you. I am generally not great at flowing, I am fine for most things, but if you are spreading at 500wpm and extempt 'evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR' or some other blippy 1 liner that you expect to win off of, if I didn't flow it then I will not vote off of it.
Statements do not have to be true, but they do have to have a warrant, the warrant does not have to be true, but it does have to exist. I will vote off blatantly false statements if there is an extended warrant and impact. Truth and tech trade off which each other, the more true you are the less tech you need to be and vice versa.
Attacks on other people are not arguments and thus don't belong in the space
I will judge kick CP's
I am not voting on evidence ethics. Stop being scared of debating. Run it as a shell or get me to reject the arg, if you stake the round you will lose.
I will not evaluate 'give me 30 speaks', I will give you what you deserve. I will probably just drop your speaks for this
Call-out affs are not real arguments. I will not vote on call out affs, even if you can prove that the debater is bad in some way, it's not my job to evaluate if a debater is a bad person and I won't do it
I will time prep if I remember which I will try to, please don't steal prep, its not fair or allowed
if you post round, do it respectfully, ask questions, I mess up sometimes, if you get your coach to come and yell at me, I will just get up and leave
I won't read evidence unless you ask me to do so, and if you ask me to do so, please say what I am looking for i.e. 'their impact card has no evidence that global warming is reverse causal' is good but 'their evidence is bad' will not cause me to go back
I will sometimes close my eyes while I'm flowing, I'm not asleep, just helps me concentrate
Presumption goes to the side of least change (very easy to change), permissibillity negates (harder to change just bc most arguments as to why it affirms don't actually justify it)
Theory is CI, DTD, no RVI
All of these can be changed very very easily but just making some type of argument about it, please dont make me use these defaults
Go for it, have well researched positions that you can understand well, just please don't be boring. If it's the same generic Aff that 100 other people have on this topic, and there is nothing about yours that makes it unique, I will be sad. I will still pick you up even if it's not interesting but I will probably give you worse speaks as a result of my not being invested in the debate.
I don't understand why people don't make more analytical turns on case, just because it's a Policy debate doesn't mean that you need a card that takes 30 seconds to read when you can say the same thing without a card in 10.
CP's: go for it, I like all CP's
I think analytical CP's that intuitively solve for all of the Aff's offense are underused, solvency advocates are probably not needed to make a CP legitimate
I like cheaty memey CP's and they are underused as well e.g. space elevators
PIC's, consult, other 'abusive' CP's are all good, but if you read 5 condo PIC's and clearly are unprepared for the theory debate that you knew was going to come I will probably drop your speaks.
If you insert evidence, you should read it, if you are pulling specific lines I think its your burden to read it, if you want me to read their evidence, tell me what specific things to look for, I am not going to read every single line of the article before making my decision. I.e. 'read their evidence - it doesn't isolate Russian aggression as the IL to war, it says bear attacks cause war' is good whereas 'read their evidence it's bad' is not something I am going to do.
Condo is prolly good unless you use it in a way that is explicitly to take advantage of condo, solvency advocates probably aren't needed, Pics are pretty neutral, process + agent CPs r probably bad. (Change my mind through debate, these are very light defaults)
Go for it, I am familiar with the rough ideas of most K literature, but I will not use prior knowledge to evaluate your K
I personally never read that many K's, but I have hit most of them, so feel pretty good evaluating them
HOWEVER, if you read some new K that is 99% incoherent, and your explanation of the K in the last speech is not sufficient for me to understand the K then I will not vote on it.
Please don't give a 4 minute 2NR overview to the K that does a bunch of implicit work everywhere, I would much prefer a brief overview then LBL
When I debate against K's I find myself confused by the decision and how the K interacts with the flow many times. I will try my best to evaluate it, but consider yourself warned.
I don't like death good, I will vote on it but I just don't find myself very convinced by it and I think ethically debaters probably shouldn't read it.
I would prefer if you have framing mechanism and that you weigh it against theory or the aff framing mechanism. However if your ROB is something that is basically just a trick, you know what this means, I don't understand how its good for debate. Your ROB should not be 'I auto win' because this would seem to rely on you winning debate bad or ontology to justify the ROB at which point you have already won.
If you are going to go for the alt as a floating PIK, indicate it in the 1NC please
I love it, I think it's very strategic, rhese are the most entertaining debates to judge a lot of the time
Friv theory is good, however the more frivolous the shell is the more frivolous of a response I will accept on the shell
Read unique shells that I haven't seen before or old shells with new standards and you will make me happy and probably get better speaks, it can be a frivilous shell, friv shells that are new are often hard to respond to which is good for you
I will vote off a RVI on pretty much any theory shell, even if it's just an I meet on theory as long as you justify it
Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is also probably good
If you read reasonabillity please give some sort of way for me to know what you think is reasonable 'good is good enough' is not sufficient to justify reasonabillity
That being said, theory debates with 5 shells and 2 RVI's floating around get messy quickly, weigh between aff theory and neg theory, fairness and education, theory and RVI's, etc.
Go for it but please read this whole section, don't just assume I want to sit through this. People are not reading this and getting bad speaks lol, debate tricks well or don't do it, don't be messy
I ran these positions and generally find them either interesting and entertaining or completely a waste of everyones time. At their best it causes tons of critical thinking, line by line arguments, and interesting weighing interactions. At its worst its two people grasping at complex positions reduced to 1 line blips which are both fully conceded and I have to intervene or flip a coin
Yes Tricks are stupid and usually bad arguments but that means it should be fairly easy to answer them and I don't get why people don't just answer them. IMO if you can't do lbl and so drop a trick that would be on you.
Don't say 'whats an a priori' in cx, I will drop your speaks, you know what it is
If you read tricks but you don't understand them then it's probably not strategic to just bombard them with tricks
If you cannot explain the paradoxes that you read, I will not rely on prior knowledge to evaluate them
If you read evaluate x after x speech I will wait until after the 2AR to see if I ought to evaluate after x speech and if you have won the argument at that point I will backtrack and evaluate the round as needed.
Like with all things- the blippier the trick is, the less you need to respond to it in order to disprove it
Tricks need warrants, otherwise you can just say 'no warrant' and move on
This 'no 2N I meets thing' lacks the warrant for an argument, you still need a violation for the theory shell and if you don't have it you will lose idrc if the 2N isn't allowed to make I meets. Also it seems like you could do this and read a very questionable shell that they probably don't violate which would possibly be a strategic way to read this argument.
If you read something without a warrant I will not vote on it, full stop.
The worst arguments I have ever seen in debate are probably trix, if you read these types of argument VERY REAL CHANCE YOUR SPEAKS ARE TANKED. I consider this fair warning to be harsh.
T vs. K affs
I lean for T in these debates due to what happened when I was a debater, but it would be a very slight lean that can easily be overcome.
I think that when done well K affs can be strategic and good for the space, but that if you read a K aff and are unprepared for T that you will probably lose
If your K aff or Frwk block is just OV generic stuff from 2012, I will be very unhappy
I think that K aff's are fine, but in the case of equal debating I think that Frwk is more true than K affs. Most people go for Frwk wrong so if you can read a K aff and win then you can go for it, but fairness is probably true, and debate is certainly good. I will vote the other way but that is my default
I start at a 28.5 and move from there, below 26 is reserved for fully offensive things. The speaks you receive are relative to the pool you are in, e.g. a 29.5 at a local is different than a 29.5 at TOC.
Speaks are a reflection of not only how good you are but how happy you make me, if I am happy then you will be happy with your speaks, if I am sad than you will not be happy. Resolving good debates that are close is very very different than judging bad debates that are messy and hopefully you can draw that distinction.
If you sit down early or take less prep I'll give you higher speaks :)
If you read something that excludes a novice or lay debater from engaging, and it is clear that you knew they could not engage and yet you still continue with this strategy, you will get a L 20. For example, if your opponent reads a case at a conversational speed and then you spread a skep and Baudrillard NC and it is clear they don't know what is happening during CX and their 1AR, then you will lose. I don't care if you are ahead on the flow, you should not have to read arguments they can't engage with in order to win. You should try to speak at a max roughly 50% faster than them. I will not drop you unless it is a case of blatant abuse, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you read a tech AC without realizing they can't engage, you should 1) help them understand in cx and 2) dont go for the tricky parts of the T
Debate what you feel comfortable with if you are a lay debater or novice, I think these debates are good and definitely an important part of learning to debate
Don't have justice vs. morality debates, they are the same thing and picking one over the other makes ultimately no difference
-I’ve judge a few rounds of cx at locals but those aren’t on here
-Tell me your pronouns/any preferred name (mine are she/her)
Stike - Theory/Phil/Tricks/k
Please don’t spread I will drop you if I can't understand you.
-I can evaluate basic trad/policy just explain well
-Open to identity Ks (anti-blackness / setcol) just explain why you’re reading it, also fine with non topical affs just once again explain and make everything able for me to read (don’t use big terms or say slurs)
-Make sure the k you read is your own identity (shouldn’t haven’t explain) I will be very skeptical of it at best L25 at worse
-Trix/Theory/Phil are all not my expertise sorry if you get me for this round I don’t really understand it
-Once again I’m a flay judge I don’t get a lot of debate terms so just explain very well
-I vote on persuasion first then argumentation 2nd.
I am a previous public forum debater who has completed in only a couple of tournaments. I have judged Policy as well. I am fairly unfamiliar with LD or Policy in terms of style and rules. Please do not spread. I have no preference on logic/technicality as long as a side can convince me. Large words to confuse your opponent will also confuse me. Make sure to extend your arguments and keep them valid throughout the round.
And yes! When I think debating I think the most powerful and fun sport. The experience and knowledge I get from every room that I have ever been in and the people that are in those rooms always inspires me to learn more and grow, not just about the policies of debate but also about the policies of humanity and how to be a better relatable person.
The biases I tend to have when I speak and the unbiased attitude of a judge I adopt when I judge all adds up to the intensity of the sport. If you're thinking debating then I'm your buddy. Saddle up and let's SPEAK UP!!
I am a parent judge, and this is my second year judging LD. If you are doing prefs, please consider me as a lay judge. I flow off the round, and I am unable to follow spreading. Be clear and coherent, because if I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't vote for you.
email ~ firstname.lastname@example.org
Eric He -
Better than most for cp theory
Slightly neg on condo when equally debated
Kritiks are ok
Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact
Wipeout and/or spark is :(
for LD -
really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad
I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat
Offense defense risk analysis will be used
solvency is necessary
T is not a rvi
yes zero risk is a thing
please be clear
please do line by line
stop asking if i disclose speaks
also speed reading blocks at blazing speed will get you low speaker points, debating off your flow will get you good speaker points
if i have to decide another round on disclosure theory i will scream
I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.
I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”
If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.
In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.
Important things to note:
-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.
-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^
-High-theory will be an uphill battle.
-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.
-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.
-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature
-Swearing is probably word inefficient
-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them
-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB
-I think debate is a competition.
-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round
-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.
Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:
-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:
-warrant and evidence comparison is made
-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized
-the aff advocates a topical plan
-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for
-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy
-I am not expected to sort through high-theory
-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection
Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:
-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC
-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-There is no 3NR
-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)
-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)
-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”
-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive
Unimportant things to note:
-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t
-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research
-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy
-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates
-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.
-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.
I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.
That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.
I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.
Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.
Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.
I come into the round presuming:
-the aff should be defending the resolution
-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution
-my ballot answers the resolutional question
-debate is a game
These presumptions can likely be changed.
Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:
-dense phil that you’re spreading through
-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution
-process CPs that result in the aff
-more than 2 condo
-friv theory - I ❤️ substance
-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions
-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches
I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.
Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!
*If you are reading my paradigm once debates have returned to in-person, please disregard the first paragraph.
COVID has made debate a bit more difficult for everyone. Not all of us have great internet. For that reason, I would rather you not spread and if you do please share your case (preferably through our medium of communication's file system but my email is email@example.com). I see this primarily as an issue of courtesy.
Hi now that I've gotten that out of the way, my name is Javier Hernandez. I did LD for 3 years and I'm currently a senior studying history and political science at UCF. For the most part, I care less about what you run and more that it's run well and relevant to the topic. K's and theory are fine as long as they don't feel superfluous, but I feel less comfortable evaluating them than I do CP's or DA's. I want a clear voter's in round as I've seen many close rounds where debaters fumble crystallization and it causes them to lose my ballot.
As far as speaks are concerned, don't worry too much. They are somewhat arbitrary and for that reason I take a relaxed approach. You start at 28 and go up or down based on what arguments you present and how they are presented.
If you have any questions PLEASE feel free to ask me any questions about things not included in my paradigm before the round.
Plano Senior '20
Indiana University '24 (currently debating in policy)
3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"
CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Saratoga AG, Plano West MZ, Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Plano East(TX)
TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.
Largely agree with
Some Generic Stuff
1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.
2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want as long as you are clear, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities.
3)No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly.I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story. The predispositions I have listed below are general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.
4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.
5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
6) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
8) Prep stops when the speech doc is sent.
9) Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
10) If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).
11) The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)
12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely have ZERO tolerance for any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes a value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
13) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.
K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.
Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.
Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.
K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.
K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.
Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!
T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS
DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.
Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.
Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.
Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.
Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.
Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.
I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.
1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.
2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.
4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.
6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.
7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.
Speaker Points Scale
29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for
29-29.3 – Very, very good
28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes
28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes
28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems
28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater
27-27.9 – Below average
27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.
***extra speaks if you have snacks and want to share some with me***
1) I'm tech over truth. At the end of the round, I determine who's winning the framework debate, and then determine who has more offense under that framework based on the flow. I'd prefer to hear logical and well-warranted arguments over appeals to emotion.
2) I prefer quality over quantity. I'd much rather see you make a few really good arguments instead of 15 quick ones since they tend to be fleshed out. I'm skeptical of debaters that suddenly extend arguments in later speeches that weren't really made/fully explained earlier. That being said, no cheap shot arguments like tricks.
3) Please weigh. Tell me why your impacts are more important and/or why your evidence is better than your opponents' evidence. I think evidence comparison (ex. comparing dates/pointing out flaws/etc.) is underutilized, and I'm persuaded by debaters that do so.
4) Please crystallize. In your last speech, explain to me the few, most important reasons why you win the round and how they interact with those reasons made by your opponent. If you focus on small details, it's unlikely I'll be convinced by the end of the debate.
5) Be respectful. Don't be mean or offensive to your opponents or judges.
Please be accessible and inclusive of your opponent and remember that at the end of the day, debate is an educational activity.
Best of luck.
1 - traditional debates (extra speaks for this).
2 - non-T AFFs, kritik, topicality, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans
4 - theory
5 - frivolous arguments, phil, analytical phil
Strike - tricks, blippy arguments with questionable warrants
I am happy to be on the email chain: Nijuarez@umich.edu.
Last update: August 2022
LD Add-On: December 2022
Okay, I've joined the Georgetown team and I've realized that I should make clear(er) some preferences I have. Obviously, any sort of judge paradigm is always in flux and any sort of ideological predisposition is open to change, but in general this gives some general/majority-of-the-time frame for how I adjudicate debates on any given day.
---Walking into a debate, the burden of the affirmative is to give me a reason to vote affirmative and the burden of the negative is to give me a reason to not vote affirmative. Generally, as a community, we have largely agreed that this is presumed to be done through a debate in which the affirmative is burdened to prove some departure from the status quo is desirable (usually in some relationship to the resolutional question, however marginal) and the negative is burdened with rejoinder (usually in the form of showing that the aff's departure from the status quo is undesirable). The resolution, in this context, is a non-arbitrary point of status because of the community's established norms and procedures for decision-making rather than any single tournament, individual, or debate. The predominance of these norms is the primary thing that makes them predictable but, given that the form of debate is determined by the individuals inhabiting it, they are always open to change from debate to debate. The only thing the judge is structurally required to do is assign a winner and loser and speaker points. Anything else about the debate is open to interpretation and contestation, with no particular model of debate being a priori more desirable, predictable, or arbitrary than any other.
---I tend to be pretty technical and care a lot about line by line unless given an alternative paradigm. I resolve alternative paradigms by line by line unless an alternative evaluation is given (and recursively on and on). While I believe in tech over truth, the more "true" something is, the less tech usually needed to win it. By truth, I mean less what I personally believe and more what seems compelling or like it could be reasonably entertained by someone evaluating the evidence before them. Which is to say that while I vote for things I don't believe in all the time, I rarely vote for arguments I do not find compelling. I have been compelled to vote for framework or the K and I find no particular allegiance to either.
---In relation to the above, I am open to other models of determining truth, but, my personal disposition is to understand "compelling" to mean "useful." In other words, statements are rewarded by being designated "true" if they are useful to believe where "useful" generally means possessing greater explanatory, predictive, and attributive power than another competing statement. In relation to evidence, this means that evidence which speaks to the utility of a particular claim is most useful (e.g. believing China is revisionist is key to any effective military and diplomatic strategy).
---Evidence tends to draw far more conservative conclusions than debaters claim it does and, as a result, I tend to only feel that the more conservative claims are justified absent work from the debaters present. At the same time, I often find people believe they need carded evidence for claims that surely could be made and defended absent cards.
---No claim should escape the possibility of being called into question. What is "common sense" is never truly so and I'm happy to entertain arguments concerning "common sense" notions.
---I am skeptical that anything spills out of debate besides a particularly in depth understanding of particular literature bases, some critical thinking skills, and the capacity to write and speak well. These things seem ideologically and ethically neutral to me, or, at least, are merely tools for anyone's particular ideological preference.
---I usually end up voting for the team that not only wins their framing, but wins the correct framing at the correct level. Oftentimes, winning the frame at one level or the wrong level is not sufficient to win the round. Winning the epistemic justifications for your impact's validity doesn't matter if you have lost that your impact has ethical relevance. Or, in the context of the DA, it doesn't matter if you win your impact if you lose the link debate.
---Besides the 2AC case overview, almost every overview should just be dismantled and put where it belongs on the line-by-line.
---I am more and more confident in simply saying "I did not understand that" and, while I do my best to fairly and accurately adjudicate decisions, I recognize that some responsibility belongs to the debater in assisting me in understanding.
---Most ROBs are just impact framing and debaters would be better served if they rhetorically presented them that way.
---I'm begging you to give me impact calculus and impact framing.
---If I get the impression that you've read more than a single book on the topic you're debating, that almost always results in higher speaker points. In short, I love esoteric discussions of niche literature. However, see above "I did not understand that" point.
---I am less concerned with the positionality/identity of the speaker than one might assume, but I'm also open to voting on arguments related to the positionality/identity of the speaker if they are forwarded.
Below are my general beliefs/preferences concerning arguments. If it's not there, assume I feel neutral about it and will vote on whatever.
Affirmatives - I'm good with anything, I don't care. If you want me to do something besides flow it, let me know. Also, I still flow various advantages on separate pages and greatly appreciate roadmaps that take that into account. I feel like an ass having to constantly ask for clarification. Generally, I believe the affirmative needs to prove a departure from the status quo. I am unsure why K teams simply do not fiat this.
Permutations - I evaluate permutations as a test of competition. Usually, but not always, however much time the affirmative spends on the perm is how much time I think the negative needs to spend answering it. I am currently very resistant to the idea that new perms in the 1AR are legitimate. Finally, I do not vote on perm theory--I simply reject the permutation if it is flagged as and proven to be illegitimate.
Disadvantage - Read whatever you want. See above thoughts on framing/impact calculus.
Counterplan - I will accept all counterplans and will only vote down on/dismiss a genre of counterplans if the negative loses the theory debate. I generally believe in functional competition. Word PICs should just be read as links to a PIK/K. New CPs in the Block are sketchy to me.
Kritiks - Read whatever you want. New Ks in the Block are sketchy to me.
Topicality - I love a good T debate. That being said, Topicality is NEVER a RVI. I default to competing interpretations.
Framework - Framework is the most idiosyncratic and ideological argument, in my mind, so I'll go a little more in depth than I would for other things. I'm by no means guaranteed to vote along these lines in any given debate, but it is my general disposition prior to any arguments being made.
Generally, I understand framework as a debate about competing models of debate. The reason this is not T-USFG is because 99% of all framework arguments are actually debates about if the affirmative needs to defend the hypothetical implementation of the affirmative, usually through a state actor. Given that this debate is a question of models of debate, I am largely agnostic to different impacts but am generally persuaded by the following things:
>Clash is what makes debate unique from other forums of education like a class or reading a book.
>Fairness is only an internal link to other impacts because there is noa priori reason that debate is good or that we aren't just wasting our time or just doing this for money/clout/whatever.
>Debate is a game
>"Debate is hard" isn't an impact
Beyond this, I am largely inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative ensures the negative some predictable ground, does not skew the division of offense too greatly (what is "too great" is open for debate), and has a convincing reason their model is good. I am largely inclined to vote negative if the negative demonstrates that the affirmative's model severely limits clash, greatly upsets the division of accessible offense, and provides convincing disadvantages to the affirmative's model.
Furthermore, given the wide-range of potential framework offense (clash vs imperial knowledge-making vs survival strategies vs extinction/violence vs...), it would behoove either side to spend some time discussing how these various impacts interact and what level of impacts are most important.
Finally, I presume the affirmative is topical and I do not vote on jurisdiction.
Theory - Generally, if you win the line by line, I'll probably vote for you. However, the main predisposition I find myself leaning towards in regards to theory debates is that unlimited conditionality is bad and most conditionality interpretations besides one or two conditional advocacies are arbitrary. Also, people rarely do terminal impact work and so I'm left deciding if "most real world" outweighs "unpredictability." In those cases, I tend to fall to my biases and whatever mood I'm in. Please help me avoid that by doing impact calculus.
All in all, good luck, debate well. If you win the line-by-line, there is a 99% chance I'll be voting for you, so don't sweat over my preferences too much.
I almost never judge LD. I'm gonna basically apply the above to judging it. I know people do wacky theory stuff in LD. I'll vote on it if you win the line-by-line, but the "truthiness" of a lot of that theory is functionally zero and is the result of the fact that LD is kind of structurally broken by the way it has set speech times.
I need content warnings for SA or self harm. Don't read arguments about these in front of me (I'd prefer not hearing wipeout or death good either).
Scroll to the bottom for LD/pref sheet stuff.
Hi! I'm Neel or NK (they/them). I debated circuit LD for a season and circuit PF for a little more. I read a bit of everything. I attend the University of Michigan (go blue) but don't debate for the school.
I'd like to be on the email chain - email@example.com
I'm of the belief that tech > truth, but making objectively untrue arguments is generally not strategic. I also disregard tech during instances of disrespect or hateful behavior. I don't tolerate bad behavior.
I'm admittedly not the best judge for tricks or dense phil debates - my lack of experience with the literature and my flowing skill tends to make me bad for these debates. Still happy to evaluate these arguments if you believe they might be strategic.
I read a bit of everything - I'm probably best for policy debates, but I almost exclusively read the kritik towards the end of my career and I started out as a bit of a theory bot. I generally like seeing debaters take risks and execute fringe strategies well.
Policy - 1
Better for CP theory than most other policy judges, but I think it makes for stale debates.
Better for low off debates with strong case pushes.
Evidence quality is very important and can decide debates (both through spin and ethics challenges).
Impact turns are cool but I don't evaluate wipeout or death good.
K - 1/2
I have a soft spot for unique K affs but I'm 50/50 on framework. Not picky on what route you decide to take (hard right fairness is just as viable as any other strategy)
I dislike overviews that "implicitly" answer everything - I strongly prefer hearing the LBL work after a short and sweet overview
Best for identity kritiks, good for the stock stuff, and bad for pomo.
I like unique presumption and tailored case arguments against K affs.
T/Theory - 2/3
I don't enjoy hearing Nebel debates but I'll still flow and evaluate arguments made on the T page.
Competing interps, no RVIS, drop the arg for theory. Drop the debater for T.
Great for cp theory, meh for frivolous shells. Big fan of disclosure. Not a big fan of other violations sourced out of round.
Not going to evaluate arguments that police appearance.
Tricks - 4/Strike
These confuse me - they're often read blippily and quickly, making me a very meh judge for these.
I evaluate debates after the 2AR and will not allow an evil demon to make me vote aff or neg.
Phil - 4/Strike
I think I haven't read enough or fostered a strong enough interest to want to listen to these debates.
I can understand Kant, and that's about it. Do with this what you will.
Relying on sticky defense is lazy debating. You need to extend arguments if you want me to evaluate them.
I have a preference for faster and more technical rounds, but I'm down to listen to anything.
I have a strong preference for reading cut cards and disclosing open-source. These can be reasons to reject the team.
New disads in the 2nd rebuttal are fine and can be strategic. Just make sure to do weighing on them.
I boost speaks for disclosure, reading cut cards, and sending speech docs.
Good for underutilized strategies (impact turns, circumvention, presumption, etc.)
Nat Quals Note: do the type of debate you are best at. I am perfectly qualified and happy to judge slower style debate, just know that I will still not be deciding the round on the way you speak but instead on the things you say. Feel free to email me after the round to ask about my decision, speaker points, etc (though I might not always remember speaker points).
What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round.
Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.
I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, yes including nebel T, yes including K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands. With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.
I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.
Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff!
Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference
1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans
1 - Policy Args
1 - Phil
2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)
2 - Tricks
2 - Theory
2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)
3 - Ks (high theory)
Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.
Below are purely procedural things
Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.
CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.
But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.
My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content
I am a parent judge. My child debates in Congress, Policy and Lincoln Douglas.
I will take notes while you speak. Please do not spread. If I do not understand you, I cannot accurately evaluate your speech. Please send me your case. My preference will be given to:
1. well structured speech.
2. strong evidence with verifiable source.
3. logical connection between the evidence and your claim(s): You must be able to connect the dots and show me how the evidence you bring up supports your standing. Warrants are important to me.
4. right-on-point rebuttal/refutation: focus on the loopholes of your opponent's arguments. Refutation can be sharp but remember to still be polite.
5. smart crossfire/ cross examination questions that may either weaken your opponent's arguments or strengthen your own arguments. Attack logical fallacies or weak links in your opponent's argument(s).
6. confident individual.
Former Georgetown debater. I competed in policy debate for 7 years. Currently coaching PF and judging policy frequently.
Yes, email chain: kmartinez(dot)asdf(at)gmail.com
TLDR: You do you. No one can be truly tabula rasa but I believe that as a judge and educator, it is my responsibility to evaluate the arguments at hand rather than based on my personal preferences.
Be respectful toward one another. I am not afraid to dock speaks for unnecessary ad hominems or things of that nature. There is no way for my to verify things that happened outside of the debate so I will not vote on them.
General thoughts that may be important for you to know (lifted from Ezra with edits):
I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states (this does not mean you can fiat solvency). Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort.
"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical.
Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic.
Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of what they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well thought out case arguments.
The K is core neg ground against small affs. I’m unpersuaded by interps that exclude K arguments entirely. That said, I’m not great for FW interps that entirely exclude the plan. I believe neg teams must disprove the desirability of the plan, but not that they must do so solely with references to its narrow, fiated consequences.
As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient.
Debated LD - 1997 - 2001
Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present
Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017
I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.
Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )
Yeah, I want the docs -- firstname.lastname@example.org,
stealing a version of this from @sebastian cho
since debate is a game lets play the speaks game
Say you want to play the speaks games
- I will put it into a random number generator
- 3/4 chance of 30 speaks 1/4 chance of 28.5 speaks
2023 note! only reason im not judging every weekend on the circuit like '22 is bc stuff isn't online like it used to be, don't let that shy u away from preffing me, I'm judging one way or another and am up to date w the topic.
Pref Cheat sheet
LARP -> 1-2
K / Theory -> 1-2
Trix -> 1-2
Phil -> 3 *
*(not saying I'm inept to these debates, rather just don't normally judge them, never read them when i debated but am fine w them)
I tend to prefer LARP debates over traditional debates. I never liked traditional LD (however not opposed) and was never the best with PHIL, these debates can be confusing for me, in all honesty. I was never a theory debater but if the theory flow is very cleanly explained, ill vote on it. No I'm not opposed to trix, or permissibility debates. Yes, ill vote on disclosure. I'm very reluctant now to vote on condo, but.. that can change 100%. I default to competing interps, no rvi's, and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. Please Extend the aff in the 2ar even if the 2ar is theory. You can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory (Batille, Pyshco, Baudy) beforehand though, I will listen and evaluate, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.
I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. if you think it's sus, imagine how I feel.
I did policy for 3 years and had some success
Policy Affs > K affs
Soft left policy affs> Big stick generic Affs
While I have these notions, I will listen to a K aff etc and not be biased against it.
Speed is fine but will say clear once before stopping flowing.
Disad/Cp debate is the key to my heart
I think a solid case page debate is the most underutilized tool in debate
you can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory beforehand though, I will listen, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.
Preferred pronouns: he/him
I debated for Garland High School for four years in LD. I routinely competed on the national circuit and broke at multiple bid tournaments over the years. I now attend the University of Texas at Dallas ( Class of 23') for Finance.
Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.
Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ email@example.com
LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well
K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.
T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.
Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.
Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because I of my lack of experience with this debate and my personal dislike for it.
I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.
In depth- section:
LARP: This is what I consider myself to be the best at.
everything else: just ask me specific questions you have before the round that you have
After some months back on the circuit, I've had some other realizations about my paradigm. Please don't go for skep in front of me, I have an extremely low threshold for it and am unlikely to vote for it/ evaluate it the way you want me to. When it comes to high level, multi-layered t/theory debate, please flash analytics that you're reading because that makes my life way easier and also make sure to do some weighing between the layers that allows me to decide which layer to adjudicate first.
Haven't judged on the circuit since TFA state so wouldn't recommend blasting full speed right out the gate. Aside from that the rest of the paradigm is the same.
October 2022: If you're gonna blitz through analytics, do us both the favor and send them to me. I know you're not spreading analytics off the dome at top speed for complex layer analysis. Don't force me to resolve 5+ layers of debate without implicating them and telling me how to vote in the 2nr or the 2ar. Also, I have a high threshold for condo bad especially if it's one condo advocacy.
After so many years of judging and hearing the same non-t affs over and over again. I would highly advise against reading very buzzword-centric non-topical affs that frankly aren't interesting to listen to. I much prefer listening to interesting new policy affs that have some sort of basis for new engagement and contestation. If you do choose to read it, I will err heavily towards t- framework and similar style arguments unless thoroughly and well beat back. If you absolutely must read it, then make sure to really explain every point of the thesis in detail during cross or your rebuttals or extensions. I'm much more likely to vote for it if If fundamentally understand why it's SO IMPORTANT that you cannot affirm the resolution.
My pronouns are he/they. While I have high school debate experience, I should be considered a relatively lay judge.
I really rely on the flow to determine which arguments are still alive at the end of the round and how much weight those arguments have. That said, I'm only okay at flowing, so I'll need you to really signpost each argument. My experience is with Parli debate so any lingo outside that realm, and any argumentative structure outside of "tagline, warrant, link, impact" will be unfamiliar to me. I'm very receptive to weighing impacts/comparing worlds.
I think a lot can go/is wrong with the speaker points system, so speaker points will be first and foremost awarded along the lines of argumentative clarity. Sophisticated language and especially fluid articulation is largely irrelevant for me.
I'm open to disagreements on framework but wary of cheap, complex, overwhelming/intimidating framework arguments to win the round rather than clarify the debate for the sake of a more educational outcome. So, if you're gonna run a framework argument, use extremely accessible language. Someone with no debate experience should be able to understand what you think is problematic about your opponent's interpretation and why agreeing with you makes the round more fair for everyone involved. Additionally, unless your opponents' framework has shut you out of the debate almost entirely, your argument on framework should seamlessly transition to your actual case. I generally don't want to give someone the win because of a framework argument alone.
You can run theory/Ks/whatever, but, as is the case above, I need you to make it easy for me to understand. Theory is fun, but if it isn't clear already, I am quite receptive to arguments about the inaccessibility of theory (and typically more so than I am to counter-theory), mostly because I myself often don't understand it very well! Additionally, and this should go without saying but it's worth writing, if the theory/K/etc you run is grounded in or propagates a hateful ideology, it is highly unlikely you will win the round.
If you have any clarifying questions about my paradigm, or about the rules and procedures of the round, feel free to ask! I'll try to answer as best I can :)
email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Did PF at VIP, NFALD at WKU
Speed is fine
Not a fan of non-t critical affs
Don't love Ks either
I enjoy topicality debates
I enjoy theory debates
Finding cards should take less than 30 seconds or its your prep (flash cases for perfect speaks).
If you disclose I'll give you really really high speaks
I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive. If you're unsure of what I mean by this or want to clarify anything ask me before the round.
Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.
Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory
Let me know if you have any questions
email for chain: email@example.com
With a cummulative 13+ years of experience across multiple formats (CX, LD, PF, WSDC, Congress, BP, AP, etc) and across multiple circuits (5 continents), I like to think that I've seen it all, so I'll keep it simple.
I value and reward consistency in logic.
Analyze everything, don't make assumptions.
Rebuttals should be thorough.
Don't make up evidence.
Be kind and respect your opponents.
This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.
I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.
If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.
Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.
Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.
Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.
I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.
The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.
Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.
Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.
The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.
I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.
You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.
Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.
LD paradigm ends here.
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.
My email is email@example.com
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.
Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.
I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.
Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.
Case debate is underrated.
Straight turns are great turns.
Topics DAs >> Politics.
I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.
While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.
9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):
While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.
I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.
Nic D Nave
The N in Rutgers MN
2017 Crowns United!
Follow me on Linkein https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-d-nave-0b869020a/
Add me on Linkedin for speaker points
Leave a review/endorsement/connect for .2 Speaker points . Just for supporting young black women professionals!
If you add me on TIKTOK I will bless your points https://www.tiktok.com/discover/realdebatewifeofkentucky
First, Energy is essential to me. Everyone must be respectful of the speaker and the participants in the round.
Background-I debated for the St.Louis Urban debate league in high school in college. After that, I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I'm the first Black Woman to win the NDT and Unite the Crowns. I debated primarily in the D3, which means I know the actual structure of argumentation. Like many "K" debaters, I learned the foundation of debate inside and out to critique it. When I'm preffed, I typically judge K debate, and I think that's cool, but I also think that I would love to expand my reach. I also feel that debate isn't the same as when I did it.... some things don't sound the same anymore......
I have coached critical/performance teams but truly value the benefits of engaging in policy making. As an Energy Equity Strategist, I am tapped into the Energy/Oil industry and love the idea that technology can save the planet! I firmly believe in energy efficiency as solvency to combat climate change and anti-blackness. I am willing to debate this for the right price$$$.
Policy Debate Proper
Speed-Do you, I'm here to support all styles and genres!
T- This is probably one of my favorite arguments in debate, the idea that I can be so petty to review a word or process makes me so happy! The pettier, the better!
DA's-Literally the first negative argument i learned in debate I love Enviorments and Climate change impacts anything with EV and mobility is also interesting to me. Politics obviously should be unique and have solid impacts!
CP's-I believe in condo also the states arent terrible...
K's,K Affs- I love learning new things! Teach me something i DON'T KNOW! I would love to hear the latest authors and see some creativity I find myself bored by some of the K debate thats been happening and think the style is declining and policy is just as entertaining at this point but thats just my take... Who am I ?
K Aff's VS Framework
Beat the procedural and win your impacts, I believe framework is one of the easiest arguments a K Aff can answer but also one of the hardest if your aff doesnt actually do anthing. Make it make sense
Name: Alex Nelson
Background: I debated for St. Croix Prep (MN) for three years. During that time I competed in LD, a few policy rounds, BQ, and World Schools. I am familiar with circuit style LD, but the majority of rounds I debated in were mostly traditional with a bit of Circuit Debate.
General Overview/TLDR: The majority of rounds I have judged recently have been traditional LD rounds and policy. I know the basics of circuit LD, anything that is niche or not super common will need to be really well explained. I’m ok with most arguments and won’t vote against you for anything specific unless the argument is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle some speed, as long as you slow down for authors and tags. Value and Criterion are a must. Link arguments through the framework and on the flow and you will do just fine. Don’t be a jerk in round and have fun.
In general, I am ok with almost all arguments. I will not listen to any arguments based on racist, sexist, homophobic, or other degrading attitudes. I judge the round based on who won the framework debate and best linked and impacted their arguments back into the winning framework. I evaluate based on the flow, so be sure to signpost clearly and be organized in your rebuttals. Extensions are always great but explain why you are extending the card. Don’t just say “Extend My Nietzsche Card” and expect me to do so. Dropped arguments are not immediately a game over issue for me. You must explain why the dropped argument is or is not important. I think philosophy and philosophic inquiry are really central to LD, so I love to see philosophy in round. I always like to see voting issues in the final speech for both aff and neg. The 2AR especially should be a crystallization and summary. I don’t need line by line in the 2AR. Also, don’t be a jerk in round or after the round. Treat both me and your opponent with respect.
The whole speaker points system has devolved into a kind of arbitrary and subjective estimation. I will start at a 26 for an average performance and go up from there. To get a 30, you need to be a fantastic debater and a fantastic speaker. If you are vocally abusive or personally criticize your opponent, you will get a 20 or lower.
My view on National Circuit Debate
I am familiar with Circuit LD and have a pretty solid notion of all the basic concepts (K’s, Topicality, Plans, CPs, PICs, Fiat, etc.). Anything really esoteric or nuanced about circuit style or organization I am not super great at. If you are running "circuity" stuff, keep in mind the preferences for each thing listed below.
I am a one hundred percent believer in the Value and Criterion framework. If you don’t have a Value Criterion (V/C), It is incredibly difficult to weigh or impact your arguments. You should be linking and impacting arguments through a V/C, whether it is yours, your opponent’s, or both frameworks. Even if you run a plan, it is very difficult to evaluate anything without the Value and Criterion. For me, the framework provides the best way to evaluate arguments, crystallize the round, and convince me on voting issues.
I’m not a huge fan of running topicality in LD rounds. If you are going to run it, it should be because your opponent is clearly and obviously extratropical. Don’t run Topicality if you and your opponent have competing definitions that are somewhat similar, just explain to me why your definition applies better or some similar argument. If, however, your opponent has a definition that is really stretching the meaning of a word, or is not all reasonable, then run Topicality. Please do not use it as a time suck to bog down the aff.
I am not a the biggest fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but I will listen to them, provided they are well run. If a plan has not been read, please do not read a counter plan. You can read the cards and just frame it as a kind of alternative option to the aff, but I don’t like hearing CP’s when no official plan text has been read even if the aff seems like a plan. I also would prefer if a plan was linked through some sort of weighing mechanism.
I love Kritiks. They are rooted in philosophy and are thus perfectly suited for LD. Make sure if you run a K that you have the essential parts: Link, Impact, Alt, and are very clear about what those are. Vague alts like reject the aff are very weak and easily permed or turned. If you are kritiking a speech act or something outside of your opponent’s arguments, you will have to explain to me why that matters in debate.
I confess that I have not seen or read a lot of theory arguments. From my limited perspective on it, I am not a big fan unless it acts as a check on legitimate abuse. You will have to really walk me through theory arguments that don't address something that is clearly abusive.
I can handle a decent amount of speed. I probably cannot understand your fastest, but I did do a bit of policy, so I bet I can understand more than most traditional judges. The important thing is to SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHORS AND TAGS. Seriously, like normal or traditional debate speed. This is because I need to be able to understand the basic outline of your argument. If I miss a little detail in the cards, that is something that can be overcome. If I don’t know what your third contention is, it becomes very hard to evaluate your argument. If I can’t understand you, I will say “clear”. If I say it a second time and I still cannot understand you, I will audibly drop my pen and stop flowing. This should be a sign that I am not putting any of your arguments on the flow, and thus I cannot evaluate them. If there is an email chain, I would love to be put
Good luck in round and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.
Put me on email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated LD in the mid-80s and then policy in both high school and college and have judged at several tournaments in the last three years.
Nothing is off limits for me except trix and speed is OK with articulation; since I haven't been listening to spread for about 20 years (until 2-3 years ago) it is really nice if you slow down for tags and major arguments and then spread through the evidence; it is also better speaking form. The winning debater will make my job easy by writing my ballot. I may not be up to speed on all of the current terms and approaches, so please avoid the use of jargon and define terms. I can follow logic. Anything can be argued (i.e. theory) as long as it is clearly explained and there is proof that it should be argued. I like creativity, but the logic has to be solid.
The winning debater will make clear arguments, with clear links, consistent with the winning the framework. Rebuttal arguments should state an argument with clear proof; simply stating an argument does not prove it, unless its a well known fact like x person is president of x state.
Debaters who earn high speaker points will state a road map, follow the road map, use logic to prove arguments supported by evidence (not just refer to cards), use their speech time wisely, and treat their opponent and judge with respect. As mentioned above, slowing down a bit for tags and major arguments will improve both my flow and your speaker points.
This will be my first year judging for debate, with limited experience in LD and Congressional debate.
The way I view my goal as a judge is to quantify the competitor's ability to advocate for their values/value criterion, while effectively refuting the claims of their opponents. While, yes, this may seem fairly standard, I aim to clarify that this means that certain tactics that aim to score points outside of being an advocate for their position will not be rewarded.
Attacking the frame of the debate might have value in academia at large, it falls outside of what the goal of this competition is attempting to foster, and thus will not be seen as an effective argument. Flow should be developed within the case, as opposed to around it.
As an "advocate", this also means that the argument should be able to be understood. Attempts to make the presentation of the case hostile (figuratively and literally) to my or the opponent's ability to comprehend ought not be given a winning score. Spreading is antithetical to being able to understand the argument. Precise language is important to developing a clear argument, but there is a point at which jargon becomes an obstacle to understanding as opposed to a clarifying tool. While being an advocate means posturing yourself as a true believer of your case, antagonizing the opponent themselves is something else entirely.
Make your case, tell me it's V/VC, provide evidence, and advocate for why it holds up more than your opponents. Do so successfully, and you will win.
Hello everyone I am a first time parent judge.
I think debate is an activity about who is more convincing, thus I will focus most on your interaction with me as well as your opponent. A good cross examination is crucial.
I believe analytics is what makes a round stand out, cards should be at a limit.
Additionally, I believe in a debate where everyone is respected. If I feel like you aren’t respectful, I will vote for your opponent.
A debater needs to be able to voice their arguments clearly, I am very strict when it comes to speaker points.
Again, Excited to Judge.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Hey! I'm Chaitra Pirisingula and I use she/her pronouns. I debated for 4 years at Millard North on the local and national circuit. I mostly ran phil and some Ks. I also enjoyed theory and T.
Tech > Truth
Read anything you want as long as you explain it well.
Speed is fine.
theory/T/phil - 1
K - 2
LARP - 3/4
tricks - 4
Theory/T: I really enjoy these debates even if they are frivolous. I think there should be a lot of weighing with standards and voters. You should read voters but if the debate gets really messy my defaults are fairness>education, no RVI, competing interps, and drop the debater.
Phil: I am most familiar with this type of debate. I've read a lot of frameworks but I am most familiar with Kant, Butler, Levinas, and Macintyre. I think you should always try to line by line a framework as well as make general responses. Make unique arguments and answer your opponents line by line.
Ks: I mostly read cap and set col but I am somewhat familiar with other authors popular in debate. A lot of my teammates were K debaters so most of my knowledge is based on their rounds. As long as you explain your theory well and don't just rely on long prewritten overviews, these can be great debates. I default to T>K but it would be pretty easy to convince me otherwise.
Non-T/Performance: As long as you explain your method well and make the round accessible these rounds are great, but I do think affs should generally have some topic link.
LARP: I probably won't know much about the topic (especially if it's one of the first tournaments on a new topic) so that might make these rounds harder to adjudicate. Evidence comparison is important but also make sure you spend a lot of time answering the warrants of the evidence itself. You should read a framework but I default to util is no other framework is provided.
Tricks: I will listen to them but I don't like voting off blips so my threshold for responses is very low.
Overall, I am open to anything as long as rounds have a lot of clash and you understand your arguments. Be nice, be creative, and have fun!
- I am a first-time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help.
I request you to keep your own time.
Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.
Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.
I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.
Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.
I am a parent judge and new to LD.
Please be slow and clear.
I look for good flow, argumentation.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
2023 NDT Champion
2023 CEDA Champion
I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.
The Black Chorus Sings
daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir
So who is this random guy?
Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)
*PF stuff at the bottom
(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2
Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)
Read bold if you have 5 min before round
2022-23 random musings-(skip if doing prefs, probably a good thing to glance at before round)
My sarcasm is through the roof, I say things as a coping mechanism... I get it, competing is infinitely more difficult than judging, we get rounds off, and you don't. If I ever look bored or say I'm bored, I promise I'm not. The day I'm bored is the day you'll never see me on these pref sheets again.
If you are a K debater and I'm in the back due to unfortunate circumstances... especially if you did not get full prefs for the tournament. I would rather you read your K fully and explain it in a different way that makes sense to a LARP judge rather than read something else
If I am on a panel with a lay judge, I don't care if you go for the 2-1 "tech judge split" but in instances like this, I've seen the tech judges split, and then the debate becomes a total crapshoot. Just remember basic probability 50%/50%/50% > slightly more than 50% x2/0%
First, Enjoy yourself, and don't take yourself too seriously, do you know how insane you have to be to do this in your free time as a competitor? I respect the hell out of all debaters. There is no one correct way to debate.
1/14 Update-I have judged just about every weekend this entire year either online or In-Person... It gets a little monotonous. So I've decided ( especially if I judge prelims and it's just me that I don't care how awkward it is over Zoom anymore, I'm going to crack little sarcastic jokes throughout the debate to keep me from going crazy. Just a PSA. Thanks.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like captain obvious in that Hotels.com commercial, but say what needs to be said to win the debate. If your 5-minute overview wins the debate, how can I fault you for reading it?
EXPLAIN JARGON! TOP of the NR/2ar should write the ballot for me, slow down, and really emphasize WHY you're winning this debate.
Speed is fine(a little-known fact about me, my fine motor skills aren’t the best due to, well reasons, so if there’s a long TAG, hold your horses and let my hand catch up, yes looking at you K debaters). GO SLOW ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES and on the T debate
No RVI's!(like literally unless the neg reads a million T/Theory shells) That means don't spend 30 seconds of the 1ar reading an RVI, and 2ns STOP spending 2 minutes answering it. I promise I will be as unbiased as humanly possible in every other aspect of the debate. Let me have this one thing. Thanks! If you like to give a 3-minute RVI 2ar on a regular basis PLEASE strike me!
Analytics, send em. thanks. It's beneficial online, you never know when your audio is going to cut out for a split sec, also it's just better for accessibility. No, I'm not interested in publishing your analytics to the internet or sending it around the circuit to screw with you...
A quick word on speaker points: I think they are the worst form of judge intervention possible. My definition of the best debater ever or being "on the bubble" is wildly different than the judge for your next round and the round after that. Both debaters start at 30. Don't be mean. Don't come into the round looking to pick a fight with someone and you should be able to keep that 30.
I don’t care what debate looks like, it’s just that I only understand certain kinds of debate and thus can only (correctly) judge those kinds of debate. If you are comfortable with an incorrect decision, feel free to stop reading and pref me a 1. I would love to say that I have experience with all types of arguments and I’ve spent the last 5 years of my life obsessively cutting cards and reading literature every spare moment I get, the reality is I didn’t. NOT obsessively worrying about the latest development on whatever topic it is for that weekend. As you’ll see down below though, I have done debate before.
*below is how I feel about certain args and how I debated, please don’t be discouraged in running a certain argument based on the info below… I have biases/preferences, we all do, any judge that tells you otherwise is lying.
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality Bad
Politics DA is a thing-x----------------------------Politics DA is not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------x------------Link matters most
Try or die----x-------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption--------------------x------------------ No presumption
Resting grumpy face----------x-------------------Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------x----plz don't
Disclosure Theory-----------------------------x--------------Shut up and deal with it
(Creds to Buntin)
Other Random Stuff and rants
I will not stop a debate just because your opponent has read an author you don't like
I will not vote off anything that breaks the structure of the debate-(ie, speech times don't exist)
False accusations of Racism and Sexism are just as bad as Racism and Sexism itself
That being said... If you feel uncomfortable during a debate, PLEASE say something
role of the ballot = roll of the eyes
Card Dumps are bad. Quality>Quanity PLEASE, I'm BEGGING YOU
keep your own time
extreme clarity when cross applying is key
You have prep. Use it.
Again, Have fun!
PF- Claim Warrant Impact, just like all other debates. I'm about as progressive as they come. 98% of the time I judge LD. That means I have tolerance for speed, plans, CPs, K's, and the whole nine yards. It also means that I have the same evidence standards as your typical circuit LD judge. Paraphrasing does not exist*. Read the card like an LD case if you want me to flow the author names. Otherwise, you are out of luck, Read the card. Send the card. Be as clean as a whistle when asked for the card.
*If it's novice, I'm far more lenient. Have fun.
I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
coppell 21 | jhu 25 | they/she | email@example.com
active coaching conflicts 23-24: lc anderson, chs9, coppell, clear lake mk, barrington ac, heritage wt, oak ridge aa, jordan vs, wolf independent cw
please call me vaish or vaishali! i did ld/cx at coppell. qualified to tfa state 2x + caught a bid round my senior year. my students have been in outrounds of toc bid tournaments and have bid/qualified to the toc. if you have any questions about stuff below.
some debate influences include patrick fox, blake andrews, jo barquin, sunhee simon, and holden bukowsky in no particular order. if they have opinions on debate i probably agree with them and you can check their paradigms for the nitty gritty stuff because i probably err a similar way.
hella serious about this --- don't misgender people. even if it's an accident if it happens more than once its an L0. same goes for identity checking in cx --- "are you a woman/man/x" is a question no one should be asking. please, please, please check ppl's wiki for pronouns or straight up just say "aff/neg" or wtv there are so many good alternatives to gendering people if you don't know their positionality. use them.
amended thoughts about nonblack afropess - i think similarly to holden about this - here's an excerpt:
"a note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning."
1 - k + larp
1/2 - topicality + theory + phil
3 - tricks
honestly of the opinion that the stuff i had in my paradigm previously was sorta vapid and kind of worthless because it doesn't really get the gist of how i evaluate debates. i'm not really terribly dogmatic -- i'm definitely able to evaluate whatever debate you give me with a lens of objectivity and careand have voted for things i'm less knowledgable about vs. things i've written papers on. make good strategic decisions, focus on making arguments that have a claim/warrant/impact, and do NOT do things that are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist. these things will probably cause you to win lots of debates in front of me and will make my life easy.
i also tend to be slower to the uptake on spreading super blippy / fast analytics esp if they're not on the doc -- i promise im trying to keep up with you but if it gets to a point where my flow is incoherent jumble you should anticipate that the rfd won't be to your liking. sorry.
i've been reading a lot of continental/analytic philosophy as of late and i really enjoy clash based interactions between the phil and other arg styles. however, i'm not reading it from a debate standpoint and so although i may get what you're saying, the context for me may be something i need abridged. however, i want to hear more of these debates and have amended my paradigm to adjust for this. please do what what you will w that info!
same as ld stuff - i like this event more but i think y'all should anticipate me being more receptive to theory than the average policy judge since i have to evaluate it much much more frequently. heads up.
i had a lot of stuff here but again it was verbose and annoying and i assume none of y'all really gleaned much from it. here's how i assign speaks:
1. strategy/decision making + round vision
2. efficiency + knowledge
3. funny stuff you say and do + thing that make the debate more interesting
that's about it. a 29 from me means i think you should be doing good work in elims of a bid tournament and i think i cap at about a 27.5 although i have gotten trigger happy and given 26.(high) for pf debates that make my head hurt. i don't really give out 30s a ton and i definitely regret a lot of the 29.5+ speaks i've given out but its all good.
Water finds the path of least resistance; make me vote with the route that is the least amount of work for me. I don't want to do mental gymnastics to reach a decision.
I love super techy debates where the debate is around extinction-level scenarios. Ks is also fine with me, but I hate K vs Larp debates, especially when there is 0 clash. Pref me if you aren't a tricks debater.
I am currently a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign studying Cyber Security. I did debate for all 4 years, I did Cx for my first two, then LD for my last 2. I debated on the national circuit. I did LARP debate but in Cx and increasingly during my senior year, I read Ks.
Prefs (1 is good, 5 is worst):
Policy/LARP - 1
K - 1.5
T/Theory - 2 (but not friv theory)
Trad - 2.5
Phil/Framework - 3
Tricks - 5 (please don't do tricks, I had this phase but its not fun to judge)
Tech and Truth are two separate things, it's stupid for someone to say tech over truth, what they mean is they like util, but that doesn't exclude K args from the round.
Debate is game with educational implications. Presumption is neg but flips aff if there is a CP (or a different interp). Make sure that your 2AR/2NR has weighing so I can vote for whatever is easy for me to vote on. I don't really know what to put in this section. It will keep expanding as I keep judging, but ask me any questions you have please, so its beneficial for both you as a debater and me as a judge.
Most of my LD experience is in LARP debate, I love it. I love the policy aspect of it. I like it when the neg reads 7 off, just make sure your DAs have actual weight to them.
I have had a love/hate relationship with K debate. I love it when you are actually genuine about the topic you are stating. Like identity politics, but if you're running a K because it is strategic to this round, then it will come off as super bad and make me disincentivized to vote for you.
The counterplan is conditional unless said otherwise, the burden of the neg if nobody lays out a framework is "the neg has to prove an instance of when the aff doesn't work/provide a better way to approach the problem". This being said, if you are debating conditionality I will be Tabula Rasa
I love DAs, especially econ DAs and politics DAs. If there is a unique DA you have, I will enjoy it. I love extinction-level impacts, but be careful if the FW isn't util then I can't weigh through extinction.
Disclosure is a must, I will literally just stop flowing if someone brings up a valid disclosure shell.
Other theory is something I'm cool with but please don't be a tricky debater and run like 5 theory shells. Theory is supposed to be run when your life is genuinely harder because of something the other debater did.
SEND THE THEORY/T SHELL OVER EVEN IF ITS JUST ANALYTICS, I will not flow it unless the shell is sent to everyone.
My local circuit was very trad, I enjoy a trad debate, and am willing to vote on trad arguments. LARP debates however can easily argue against a trad debate, and I prefer LARP so its not in your best interest to read trad in front of me, especially at a nat circuit tournament.
I don't really enjoy philosophy because there are so many different interpretations of it. If you are reading a generic phil like Kant, I'm chill with that. If there's phil I don't understand, I just simply won't vote on it. If you are planning on reading Phil/FW, just ask me before the round, I will probably tell you I know your author/idea.
Things to make life easier:
- Set up the email chain before the round, I'll know you've read my paradigm
- Sending cards is a must, but please don't be extra and send only the cards, if you're gonna be reading analytics at 350 wpm and I don't understand it, I won't flow it.
- If you sing 30 seconds of Kanye, I'll give you 30 speaks
- Don't be dumb, I woke up at 8 AM on a Saturday when I could've been sleeping, please don't be extra.