Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

Socrates' remarks in Plato's Apology is the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate; contrarily, I am placing the burden on the debater to debate - it is the responsibility of the debater to explain arguments presented. Arguments have a criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

1) I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

2) General information, for any debate types:

A) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference.

B) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to arguments.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. Good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Sections/State 2025 Updates

- I've updated my locals paradigm at the bottom, not with new rules or constraints but more detailed thoughts on how I tend to judge and how you should try to win my ballot.

- Topic note: obviously this topic cannot be debated as a "general principle", which is my preferred approach to traditional LD. I strongly prefer that the 1AC choose to unconditionally defend UNCLOS, ICC, or both (really, choosing just one is better, although that's just a personal preference), and think it is clearly the "framer's intent" to give the affirmative pre-round rather than in-round flexibility in choice of advocacy. As such, I think it's appropriate for me to vote on theory arguments introduced by the negative to enforce this norm and deter shenanigans.

- MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved.

- That being said, author qualifications are an important aspect of evidence comparison, and I encourage you to raise this as a substantive, rather than procedural, issue.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

• I have at times had a pretty extreme neg bias this year (2024-25), and this mostly comes down to me likely being stricter when it comes to rebuttals than most judges, and in particular when it comes to impacts and weighing. The 1AR and 2AR need to extend everything necessary for your offense to function -- identify a harm in the status quo, tell me why it's bad, tell me why affirming solves (or go for deontological offense). On every component of this story, you should be comparative where necessary -- tell me why your offense outweighs your opponent's, why the reasons you do solve are stronger than the reasons you don't, etc. The negative needs to do this as well, but given the nature of LD speech times, it's much more likely that the neg ends up with some piece of uncontested offense.

  Take a standard affirmative argument on the wealth tax topic, that it would raise substantial revenue that would be put towards social programs. Sometimes the affirmative blows past solvency, not explaining why the amount of revenue raised outweighs the negative fiscal impacts from administrative costs, capital flight, etc. Sometimes the affirmative blows past the impact, just saying "trillions will be spent on social programs" without explaining why that matters or why that's a more important internal link to poverty than a loss of wages and jobs. In these rounds, unless I think the affirmative is beating the neg on every one of these arguments, the threshold for "the aff wins X but the neg wins Y, there's no comparison between X and Y so it's at worst a wash, I vote neg on Z" is a lot lower.

  For example, compare the following extensions:

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade."

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade, this comes from a model that assumes a 15% avoidance/evasion rate based on European studies which already accounts for their solvency takeouts."

  The first gives me little to work with which spells trouble if you drop a solvency takeout, while the second drastically lowers the threshold for aff responses to solvency takeouts.

  So to win my ballot, first, extend impacts. Don't just leave it at "affirming solves democracy / climate change / economic inequality / etc.", give explicit reasons why these things matter. I won't do that for you. Second, weigh. Weighing is not just extending your impact and saying it outweighs on magnitude/probability, it requires comparative analysis between your offense and your opponent's. These two are really important -- there have been several rounds where I voted neg but thought a 2AR that spent about 20 extra seconds extending their impact and doing explicit comparison would have cleanly won. Finally, you'll likely need to collapse more. It's rare that the 2AR goes for two pieces of contested AC offense and I think that was a good idea -- more often it means you're skimping on necessary extensions/weighing, dropping line-by-line responses, or undercovering the NC, unless the neg has made major errors or you are significantly more technical than they are.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

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+

Evidence 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. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

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. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

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, trix, punch theory, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

About Me

I identify as a lazy judge. If at the end of the debate I cannot resolve key questions on my flow, I am voting for the opposing team without hesitation. I don't like thinking too hard after debates. Write my ballots for me with your speeches.

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu; ridgenjdebate@gmail.com (add both)

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Hi I'm Scott

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style when in the role of the judge. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible. I am a very flexible critic and coach.

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Pronouns: He/Him

Hi, I am a parent judge. Please set up an email chain before the round (email: duggaraju@gmail.com) and send me documents.

While speeding is ok, I would prefer that you not spread and instead use word economy and vocabulary to convey the same.

parent judge truth > tech - pls send case in file share better for me to follow along

dont be racist transphobic homophobic etc thx

I'm a parent judge with a year of judging experience. See me as a lay/flow judge. No theory, K, or Phil of any sort, I do not understand this language. Be funny and I will raise your speaking points. Have fun!

Email: Annaherrig2@gmail.com

General:

UTT 21-Present

Please send speech docs! (also if you say "mark the card here" please mark it)

Lets all learn something from each other. Debate is supposed to be fun, that being said, if you are having fun, I'll have a better time judging the round. The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Signposting is important, please do this throughout your speeches and tell me the order beforehand.

Tech>truth.

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Topicality

I will vote on T. I think you need to be explaining why you have the better internal link to either fairness or education. I think these debates have gotten increasingly shallow, and no one goes for it as a super compelling strategy in the block anymore. Explain why under your interpretation, debate is better and you method is better for debate at large. Arguing the spillover effects of your interp is an easy way to win this on the negative. Generics will not do it for me. I default to competing interpretations.

Disads

You should be cutting new uniqueness very often, and if you go for this strategy the quality of your evidence will have an impact on my decision. "If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is." -Kristiana Baez. There is such thing as 0% risk of a link.

Counterplans

Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs. I really like counterplans, and I like process counterplans. I don't love super generic CP's with the same set of solvency cards each round. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates. You should have specific links to the aff. I am the best for cap. Anything else, especially anything pomo, you will need to explain to me like I am a 5 year old. If you're arguing that the k outweighs and turns case, you need a solid articulation as to why. You also need to be arguing specific impacts of the k, and how that compares to the claims made in the affirmative. I need a very clear explanation of framing here, and if you go for the K in the 2NR you should be writing my ballot for me. I also need a very clear picture of how the alternative functions, and why you solve the aff if you do.

K v K

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments.

Theory

Dumb theory or tricks won't do it for me. However, the less generic you are, the more I would be willing to vote on this. I believe theory that is done well and is well-articulated could be a compelling place for me to vote. I think proving in round abuse is important. Generally, I think condo is good.

Pref Stuff:

I am best for a policy v policy debate and or policy v k debate.

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.

PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.

Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.

• The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)

• I hate intervening

I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…

For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”

For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...

Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".

SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW

Any questions? Ask me before round

Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments

Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has

Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism

Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,

Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics

Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism

Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche

Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan

Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx

Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism

Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille

Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio

Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle

Borders Gender Language, Subaltern

CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep

Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism

Please email speech docs to: mei4judge@gmail.com

TLDR; Flay judge; did policy debate at the national level back in college (this was a REALLY long time ago), so treat me as somebody who mostly has no idea what you are talking about, I'm not up to date on the current policy meta.

General:

Tech>truth, tabula rasa until you're racist/sexist/homophobic/personally offensive in any way, in which case I will instantly drop you with the lowest speaks possible. Defense is not sticky, weighing in the 2AR is imperative, make sure you extend arguments made in the ac/nc clearly across the flow and signpost well so I can flow you, especially if you're speaking fast. Tell me why cards actually matter instead of just throwing around their names in rebuttal. Trad>circuit debate, give me voters in the 1nr/2ar, I will try to remain as noninterventionist as possible and evaluate based off the flow. I look for you to creatively extend your contentions and CPs and think out of the box in your 1ar/2ar/2nrs, those are interesting for me.

Prog arguments:

I hate speed, I'm not the best flower and I'll probably drop some of your arguments if you spread. I strongly dislike/don't really understand k affs, kritiks, friv t, and non-topical arguments. Avoid tricks as I wouldn't know what hit me and won't vote you up or down for them.

VC/phil debate:

Go for it. Phil debate is an integral part of LD. I default util in the absence of any framing, but if one side offers framing and the other side does not, I'll evaluate based off of framing presented. Just make sure to keep it understandable and don't throw singular cards from random philosophers around as a complete framework.

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 2

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed regardless of the reason.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. Not based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm good with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care, as long as you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- K's are fine

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

UCI Law Class of 2026

jakemelton14[at]gmail[dot]com

Treat me like a lay judge and I will be sad.

I can handle your speed.

I keep getting held over to judge out-rounds late on Sundays or Mondays, if you pref me high you are a part of that. :(

I've judged arguments ranging from French philosophers to the MBA politics disad, just do you and do you better than your opponents do them.

Intelligent arguments (read: hard to understand) are lovely until I know them better than the team reading them.

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

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.

Theory/T
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.

Tricks
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.”

Kritiks
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.

Philosophy
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.

Cross-ex
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.

Policy Paradigm

General
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.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
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.

Advantages/DAs
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.

Kritiks
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
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

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.

About Me:

My pronouns are he/him. I'm a parent judge. I'll try to be completely tabula rasa, but I do not understand spreading. Add me to the email chain; my email is kiarashnoorizadeh@gmail.com.

General Thoughts:

Don't go over time. Be respectful to your opponent.

I like Policy Debates. I prefer non-extinction impacts. Buzzwords mean nothing to me.

I'm cool with Kritiks, but don't assume I know your literature base.

I know of theory, but I would prefer a substantive debate.

No trix pls

Speaker points are 26-up unless you're rude. I allocate them half based on delivery and half on substance.

Other Notes:

I really enjoy an intelligent exchange of ideas, and the art of debate is important to me.

You can email me to ask questions before round for clarification.

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

I am a parent volunteer. I've completed online training and watched several demo videos, I am a new judge.

Speed: I okay with speed, however I prefer moderately fast (and not too fast) speed. I really like an articulate, eloquent speaker. It's nearly impossible to show me you're the better speaker at 300 words per minute. Prioritize clarity, be sure to signpost, don't spread, and you'll be fine.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your input is better than your opponent's.

Finish strong and on time. Be specific. Support your arguments and disprove opposite arguments with data, evidences and clear points.

If you choose to spread, do it well.

My background in debate is that I was a Policy debater in the Chicago Debate League for four years in high school and I debated on the College LD circuit for one year.

I was a K-heavy debater. This doesn't mean you will be automatically advantaged by reading a Kritik. They are the area of debate I am most knowledgeable of, and thus it's most clear if you're butchering the source material. However, I cannot deny that they are the arguments in debate I find most persuasive, as they are the arguments that persuaded me when I was a debater.

I focused on Cap K, Security K, Social Ecology K, and Delueze and Guatarri Ks.

I'll list my thoughts on each stock arguments.

My general paradigm:

I will do my best to be a clean-slate judge, but I'm only human.

I have a high threshold for when I consider an argument valid. It is not enough to simply state a point, but you must also justify it.

If your strategy is to throw out more arguments than the opponent can respond to this will both not work for me and earn yourself poor speaker points. That practice is exclusionary, poor rhetoric, intellectually lazy, and quite frankly boring.

Make an effort to clash with your opponents to earn high speaks.

Aff:

Inherency, Harms, and Solvency are stock issues. You must defend them.

I'm okay with Kritical Affs, I ran a few of them. However, they must be related to the Topic and be a high enough quality argument to justify the educational impacts of significantly breaking the rules.

Neg:

Prepare on-case arguments. It's just better debate practice. Impact turns are dope.

DA:

Debate, in general, has a horrible habit of having absolutely nonsense DAs that win rounds. So many of them are truly ridiculous and are historically and empirically proven nonsensical fearmongering.

That said, it's the affirmative's responsibility to convince me in round that an impact is highly unlikely.

I've always found the Impact and internal Link chains to be the most suspect part of a DA in most cases. No, I don't think a modestly higher federal deficit will cause Great Power War with CHINA.

CP:

Perm is a test of competitiveness, not an advocacy.

I consider PIC's highly abusive, lazy, and boring. If you want to run a PIC criticizing problematic language they or their authors used, you should run a critique or run a separate off-case.

Debaters used to argue CPs themselves are abusive and unjustified. The debate community has largely resolved this question in favor of CPs, but I think the community should revisit it. There are some very interesting arguments to be made and I will boost your speaker points for running this.

T:

The least interesting debate to be had, and I'll be more than a little salty if I have to vote on it.

That said, if an AFF is GENUINELY UNTOPICAL I have no problem hearing T out and voting on it.

I generally dislike the accepted strategy that you should always run T just to waste the AFF's time, and your speaker points will reflect that.

K:

I find Ks the most interesting part of debate, and I would love to see good K debate and I will be personally biased towards high speaks in these rounds.

That said, there is absolutely nothing worse in debate than bad K debate. I would rather listen to a 1nc of T and oncase.

Your alt matters. Too many critical teams, especially ones I've faced have some of the laziest excuses for alts. It must solve the impacts, or the impacts should not be weighed.

Perm is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy.

Read the literature. If you don't, it shows. If you want to be a good K debater, you must ABSOLUTELY READ THE LITERATURE. You will get so much more out of the experience.

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

andy stowers forest

I do anti-trafficking research and judge debate.I also like reading banned books for free from anywhere using the instructions here:this link. Technology is cool!

General

1. Please don't be a jerk to your opponents: this is supposed to be fun, not miserable.
2. If your argument requires me to believe a certain country's government is a bad actor, you MUST make some attempt to justify this statement.
3. If your argument requires me to believe people FROM a certain country are bad actors, I will personally not find this argument persuasive whatsoever.
4. Really, any type of argument founded in implicit or explicit identity-based hate will not be persuasive to me at all. Explicit identity-based hate comments will cause me to stop the round and report the matter to tab immediately. Many, many marginalized debaters worked hard to be here and deserve to be respected.
5. I want to be on the email chain, please ask for my email in round.
6. Mostly tech judge, but tbh more of my subject matter expertise is in direct policy advocacy and consulting work, so I probably care a little more about face validity than your average tech judge.
7. Stand to speak or sit to speak, I truly don't care: I'm here to listen to a good debate and I'd prefer y'all debate in the way that's most comfortable for you.
8. If you think I'm not flowing during cross, you're correct. Per the rules, say it in your speech or it won't count.

Technical preferences

1. If both of you choose extinction as your main impact, absent other clear voters, then I'll probably vote for the extinction scenario that takes everyone out more quickly or with less suffering. You've been warned.
2. I think extinction impacts are nearly all non-unique and it's really just a matter of how long it takes vs. how long it would otherwise have taken were the given action not performed. Using extinction impacts as a primary impact is generally more convincing to me if you identify how your side would either delay inevitable climate changeor how it would insulate some part of the human or animal population against full extinction (even if only a small part). Otherwise I kinda just think you're reading cards that you don't fully know how to apply as argumentation.
3. I'm fine with speed as long as you're fine with speed: sometimes students simply are not at the level of skill to be spreading as quickly as they are and I strongly encourage you to respect your own skill level in making this assessment.
4. On that note, don't spread unless you're going to share your case doc.
5. SIGNPOST. if you are doing your case with speed, please slow down for just your contention labels so I can tell very clearly when you are moving between points and whether I have missed something.
6. Winning rounds isn't just about having smart arguments, but about being able to explain them in a convincing manner to somebody (the judge) who has had less time than you have with the source material (your case). There's a great quote from BJ Novak about making television that imo applies to debate, I'm paraphrasing tho bc I can't find the original: "you can't just say that the problem was your audience because they were too stupid to understand your script. That's your audience, that's who this is for, if they didn't get it then you didn't write it well enough."
7. My goal is to be able to cleanly vote off of flow in rounds: you can make this easier for me by presenting your arguments in the same order or as close to it each time. You can also make this easier for me clearly signposting, and by avoiding irrelevant arguments/explanations.
8. For some reason, it's not en vogue to clearly define terms in the resolution, specify framework, or specify a weighing mechanism...if you do these things, you have a better chance at winning my vote

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

University of Wyoming '21 | Current MPA Student at the University of Washington '26

Debate Coach at Weber State University

Over the last few years of judging policy, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

Email: sarithavankayala@gmail.com

I'm a Lay Judge. So, avoid running DA's, counterplans, plans, theory, critics, and other technical arguments. Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention

Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

To ensure that I catch all the most important parts of your case (like the value, value criterion, and each of your contentions), try to slow down and emphasize when you are introducing your framework and each of your contentions. Throughout your entire case, speak clearly.

Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

I like a good cross fire.

Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed but will be used AGAINST you during your rounds.

Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contentions fit the winning framework better than the opponent's contentions.
Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

I debated PF for 2 years and 1 year on the LD natcir. i build in ai & web3.

email: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com

I'd like to think of myself as tab ras but as time has gone on and the number of rounds I've judged passes the 1k mark, I've realized that some rounds and arguments are just impossible for me to enjoy and I'm not trying to judge six double-flighted rounds where i just hate every single round. plus with debaters participating in an increasingly ridiculous arms race to game rounds, i have developed a real distaste for the current landscape of debate. i think debate has real importance and educational value and this arms race makes it harder for outsiders to participate in the activity.

I subscribe to the philosophy that the debater that makes it easiest for me to do my job will win the round 8/10 times. This means clear signposting, effective & frequent weighing, and excellent warranting.

So, to be fair to debaters, here's what I think:

1. plan/cp debate: ideal and easiest for me to evaluate. condo probably bad but if theres a compelling argument for condo good in round ill vote for it. these args are honestly why i keep coming back to judge debate, a good plan/cp debate is incredibly hype.
2. value/vc debate: i find most of them to be pretty cringe. i don't really find a compelling reason to vote for either frameworks so its super arbitrary at the end and i default to weighing/ink on the flow anyway.
3. i really expect aff to defend full rez
4. spread: don't do it unless youre actually clear - i can count on two hands the # of LDers I've judged with good spread.
5. ks: most ks are underdeveloped and i'm not going to understand some advanced obscure european concept in seven minutes. if you're running your own specialized k, you need to explain it.
6. aff ks: really cringe and i don’t like judging these. i signed up to judge events about the topic, not to evaluate your performance or whatever
7. rob/roj arguments: you need to give me a deeply compelling reason to completely change my phil from "vote for best debater" to whatever you think rob is. and no, i don’t believe this uplayers procedural arguments.
8. theory: most theory is super random and frivolous - nebel is just like some random guy who works for vbi. i think theory should be justified and the round should pivot to theory immediately only. in this sense, losing theory should mean dtd not dta.
9. T: i think topicality is an exemption of the above, aff doesn't win anything for being topical.
10. rvis: lowkey should be automatic as a norm, it checks against egregious strategies; like going for 6 blippy shells and kicking all of them for timesuck. but whatever, i wont judge on rvis unless a debater explicitly advocates for them and wins on that arg.
11. trix: just debate the resolution man
12. disclosure theory: absolutely nonsense. i debated at a small school and i don’t really see how teams are getting "better" with disclosure unless you go to some elite private school and can afford hundreds of thousands in total spend for coaches, briefs and camps. a lot of you guys are deluding yourself that smaller schools are gaining more access to debate with prog argumentation - absolutely not true, in fact i would argue it's making it harder because you have to know all these random norms (that you won't know unless you attend camp!!!)
13. pf: spreading and running theory in pf is bad for the activity and i'll drop you and give you 0 speaks.
14. i'll never vote on an argument because of your identity and yea if ur racist/sexist/*ist automatic drop. just debate the resolution man.

so, you should think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge.

if you're a coach and you postround me, i'll report you to tab if it's especially egregious. i don't care about whatever crazy argument your debater made, if your kid can't read my paradigm it's on them as i'll pretty much stick to what i'm saying here.

Add me to the email chain: jjeff12@gmail.com

I am somewhat new to judging. You should consider me a lay judge who flows. I also would prefer a more policy heavy debate to phil or k debate, as I'm not too familiar with some of it. I have mainly judged lay debate so far, so it's always a safer idea to read lay cases in front of me. If I'm on a panel, you obviously can do whatever you want but I would appreciate some extra judge instruction if you want my ballot because there's a fair chance that I won't understand your k/phil literature.

Things that can get you higher speaks:

• AUTO 30: Bringing me a celsius, low-calorie energy drink, diet coke, protein bar/shake, food (something not too unhealthy but lowkey boba)
• +0.5:Tell me who your favorite Strake alumni debater is and text them thanking them for their lasting impact on the activity
• +0.5: Show me screenshot evidence that you followed LaMelo Ball or Niki Zefanya on Instagram and reshared his or her most recent post on your story
• +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
• +0.3: Guess my favorite twice member
• +0.3:Innovative funny arguments
• +0.2: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
• +0.2: Making references to goated shows in your speeches
• +0.2: Being funny
• +0.2: Drip
• +1.0/-1.0:If you and your opponent both agree, you can have a push-up competition and the winner gets +1 and loser gets -1

Notes:

• I haven't thought about debate in like a year
• I don't enjoy tricks rounds that much and lowkey my mood at the time affects speaks

I debated for 3 years at Strake and got 12 bids. Add me to the email chain:jarvisxie03@gmail.com

Shortcut:

T/Theory/Reps: 1

Normal Phil: 1

Normal K: 2

Tricks: 2

LARP: 3

Weird Phil: 4

Weird K: 4

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Joseph Georges (took the majority of his paradigm), Neville Tom, Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly. Add me to the email chain at bobyang_00@yahoo.com

I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.

My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."

K's, phil, off-topic is not going to work well with me as I'm just not going to be able to follow it as much as I need to in order to make a reasonable decision.

Also, please dont read anything around racism or genderism/sexism. That is auto-L20 from me to whomever brings it up first. I dont think it's fair to expect a student to argue or defend a position that they dont necessarily agree with in order to win a round. I dont want to see anyone called sexist or racist just because their opponent read a race or sexism argument.

Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)

Email: maxwell.zen@gmail.com

I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.

For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.

Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.