Byron R. Arthur

The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Judging Since September 1983

Debate Events Judged : All of Them

Debate Events Coached: All of Them

Overview:

I have worn a number of professional hats through the years and they all influence how I see the debate. First, I am an attorney. This means that I insist upon evidence and its integrity. Under no circumstances do I tolerate debaters who play fast and loose with interpretation of evidence. Second, I am an educator which means I seek to maximize education for all of us who are involved in the debate. Please join me in that effort when you are debating in front of me.

Public Forum

I encourage you to read the LD section of this paradigm from the section on Points through the end. That information pertains to you as well.

During practice rounds I have had debaters ask me if I am ok with speed. Please see my comments below but I will add this to the mix: Why? Given the format of this event, I have seen debaters strain to make a plethora of arguments in the first two speeches that they never mention again due to time constraints. I would rather you seek a depth of arguments rather than breadth.

I can tell you that if I don't hear it in the Summary, I am not paying any attention to it in the Final Focus.

I am not going to supply analysis for your arguments. Explain what you say and tell me its implications. This is not an exercise in how much I know but what you can convince me to be true

LD:

Topicality – I am happy to vote on T if it is argued well. You should know that I tend to interpret T very broadly so in some instances you might want to choose something else if your violation is one that is based upon a fairly strict interpretation. Not a huge RVI fellow. I tend not to ignore all else in the round in order to give the AFF a win for meeting one of its burdens.

Types of Arguments – There are no arguments that I reject out of hand. While I was in high school when LD was created, I am not opposed to all of the ways in which it has evolved. Counterplans are not only acceptable but encouraged as long as they are meeting all of the traditional burdens such as competition and net benefits. I would say the same for the disadvantage and its burdens.

I am very fine with the K debate as well. But at the end of the day, there must be a link for me to consider. I love debates about race, gender, sexual orientation, and other opportunities for debaters to engage in discourse about issues that are important. Yet, I also believe that individuals spend time crafting topics for a reason and call me old-fashioned but I still like those discussions. Most topics allow us to have the best of both worlds but at times they do not. Learn to recognize the difference if I am in the back of the room.

Theory is a means to an end and those who love the idea of theory as its own thing should definitely strike me.

Speed – There was a time when I would walk out of a room very impressed with the debater who was incredibly fast and offered a cornucopia of arguments. That was about 40 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument. If I can't understand it then I can't vote on it.

Points- My range for points is generally between 26.5 -29.9. 26.5 is reserved for those who are incomprehensible, disengaged, non-responsive, or simply missing the boat. 29.9 is reserved for the debater who demonstrates a mastery of argument, communicates nuances, has the ability to analyze arguments and make meaningful comparisons, has on-point evidence, and has outstanding communication skills. THOSE WHO ARE RUDE TO OPPONENTS OR USE PROFANITY WILL RECEIVE A 20. IF YOU ARE UNEASY WITH THIS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING ME.

I am very sensitive to the way that we treat each other in this activity. I take allegations of bullying and intimidation very seriously. As an adult in the room, I will immediately deal with these issues and protect the rights of all individuals involved. If you feel that there is an issue when you are debating in front of me, know that we will proceed in the following manner:

1. Please raise the issue when you are aware of it. I will then allow both debaters to go and find their respective coaches/adult chaperone before we proceed. I will not engage students on issues of this magnitude without their adult advocates present.

2. I will listen to both sides of the discussion to determine whether or not we can proceed with the debate or if it should be brought to the tournament director for further resolution.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my second year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed. SERIOUSLY CLARITY > SPEED ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.

For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:

1. Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
2. Was the logic in the speech sound?
3. How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?

For debate tournaments, I look for the following:

1. Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
2. Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
3. Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
4. Was evidence used effectively?
5. Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
6. Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?

I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.

Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.

I am a parent judge and this is my fifth year judging in policy, PF, and LD events. Please do not spread or speak super fast: If I cannot understand you and follow your flow, I will not be able to judge you.

I am a scientist by training so I am mostly looking for the logic connecting the evidence with the statement, and if the opposing side was able to identify the conflict of evidence either existing in assumption and study methodology. I do not judge the credibility of the evidence by its author or organization but more on what the opposing team picks up to clash and answers to.

I am a parent judge with 8 years of experience judging almost all categories of speech and debate competitions.

Hello,

This is my second year as a parent judge. While many "k affs" are cleverly conceived, I value and adjudicate in favor of those debaters who focus on the core issues of the assigned topic and can most clearly and logically lay out their case.

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

I am a first time judge (lay), so please explain everything carefully and thoroughly as my debate-specific knowledge about this topic is limited.
I will base my vote on the following:
- whichever side proves that their harms/impacts outweigh the other and successfully refutes their opponents’ claims while defending their own (especially in the rebuttal speeches)
- Demonstrate clear speaking skills (speak slowly and clearly as I am new to debate)
- Have good presentation skills (use of hand gestures and eye contact with the judge/me)

Some additional factors that may influence my ballot:
- Help condense the debate in the rebuttal speeches and explain why your side deserves to win
- No spreading - if you do so, I will most likely vote for the other side as I will not read off of your word documents and would much prefer to actually watch you debate
- Do not be disrespectful or condescending towards any of your opponents (that includes but not limited to misogynistic, homophobic, racist, demeaning behavior). Any such behavior will merit a vote for the opposing side.
- Please time yourselves - this applies when you begin/end your speeches, cross-ex, and especially for your prep time. Make sure to alert me when each side is beginning their prep.

I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate

Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate

Hello there! If you're reading this, then I'm probably going to be your judge for an upcoming Lincoln Douglas round, and you'd like to get some advantage on your opponent by searching me up. Congratulations, you're an opportunist. You'll go far in life. 

I have competed in Lincoln Douglas debate and speech events including Impromptu, Oratorical Interpretation, and Thematic Interpretation. I have been ranked in the top 40 Impromptu speakers in the nation in 2019-2020, 6th in CA Impromptu, and 20th in CA Thematic Interpretation. I've been to a fair few tournaments and seen my fair share of opponents and events, and my beliefs are thus:

• Speak cleanly and with purpose. Spreading, in my mind, is dumb. Speaking with a punctual clarity goes to the heart of true debate, and allows for your opponent to comprehend and make substantive arguments for their side. That'll give you high speaker points in my eyes, as well as better performance overall.

• Know your cards, and use them well. If you attempt to refute an argument without a card, I won't give it much weight. Backing up your arguments with evidence as much as possible is crucial. Without evidence, you're not a debater—you're simply another person with opinions. Quite frankly, there are a couple billion other people all with opinions in the world, and that's a bit too many already.

• Don't drop an argument. If you do, that's a big detraction on your ranking. Responding to an argument is important, and I keep close note on which arguments are raised and which are responded to. If you believe your opponent has dropped something, call them out in speech and I'll take note of it. If you are accused of dropping something when you didn't, also feel free to call them out about it briefly, and I'll vindicate you.

That's about it. Don't be annoying, don't be rude, and keep in mind—this is a debate, not an argument. It's for the enrichment of the mind, not to be petty to win a clash of verbiage. Learn something, maybe even win something, and have some fun. If you've read to the end, include the word "susurration" in a speech of yours and I'll throw a speaker point or two your way. 

Hey Everyone! I graduated from Presentation High School in 2021, where I spent my four years there mostly specializing in Congressional Debate, but I do have experience competing in PF, World Schools, LD, NX, and Impromptu.

Congress Paradigm

To me, Congressional debate is the perfect marriage of Speech and Debate -- combining the best of both worlds. I value clash and refutations above all since it is, first and foremost, a debate event. That being said, your speaking skills and speech structure are also important. I always enjoy good rhetoric and when debaters drop bars or one liners because it is the perfect opportunity for you to show us your style.

Please use and cite your evidence! I vote mostly based on the warranting you present. Do not make your entire speech an emotional appeal -- you can incorporate some elements of pathos, but you definitely need logic, reason, and evidence to support and back up your claim. I prefer to rank debaters that demonstrate comprehensive understanding of topic knowledge and the impact of the legislation.

During authorships or sponsorships, please lay out the reason you need the legislation before explaining how it improves the status quo, and provide the framework for which to evaluate the debate. Every single speech after the authorship or sponsorship should have refutations. I love when debaters present a unique lens of analysis or perspective that changes the scope of the entire debate, especially during crystals. Congressional debate does not offer as many opportunities to directly engage with others, so cross-examination is crucial for asking methodical questions and providing quality responses that further your perspective or argumentation.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN and be kind to each other. You may refute the arguments of fellow debaters, but do NOT name call or be disrespectful. Always remember your oath to this country and your constituents -- the people who elected you into office to represent them.

Note to Presiding Officers: I expect you to know and adhere to proper procedures and protocols (Robert's Rules of Order) to run a fair and efficient chamber, while ensuring decorum. Do NOT abuse your power or attempt to manipulate procedure to drop others, etc. If you do a great job as a presiding officer, I will rank you.

...and on closing thoughts...Good Luck! & Dad jokes are punny :)

...

Public Forum Paradigm

Yes, I flow. Please provide me with a framework during the constructive speeches and establish why I should favor your framework over the other team's later in the round. That being said, you should still apply your case to both your own and the other teams' frameworks.

If you drop an argument in Summary, do not bring it up in Final Focus because I will not take it into account. I will also not consider any new constructive contentions brought up in Summary and Final Focus. Please show me what worlds look like in the affirmation and negation before you weigh them. You should be weighing and collapsing in Summary. Please terminalize your impacts! I love impact calculus and case turns. Your Final Focus needs to include voter issues; and, please explain their relevance; else what should I vote on?

I expect all debaters to participate in grand cross. I understand that you may want to use that time to prep, but cross examination is still important, even if it does not technically appear on the flow. Please bring up the points you win from cross examination during your speech. Back in my day, PF allotted for 2 minutes of prep time, but you have 3 minutes, so you should do your prep during that extra minute instead.

This goes without saying, but evidence is paramount, so please use and cite your evidence! Also, while my business professor will contend that Cash is King, here, Clash is Key. I appreciate when debaters thoroughly break down and address the warranting of their opponents' argument and prove it to be untrue rather than just tell me that their opponents are wrong. If both sides have evidence, why should I prefer your contention over theirs? Do not expect me to draw the lines for you.

Ultimately, Have a Great Round, be Respectful, and Good Luck!!

You can reach me at keeyonghan@hotmail.com (add me to email chains if you can!)

For debate specifically, I'm extremely lay — try to explain clearly and guide me through arguments carefully. Speak at a conversational pace — trying to cram in tons of different arguments doesn't appeal to me. By the last few speeches, you should be focusing on one or two specific issues in the debate. Cross-examination is important! Don't just ask clarifying questions, be sure to add follow-ups.

I am a parent judge and this is my 4th year judging debate and speech tournaments.

For debate-

My vote is based on the following three principles:

1. Clarity and evidence: Debaters should deliver their arguments clearly and concisely, with supporting evidence from credible sources. Take your time to explain your reasoning to the judges, and don't assume that they will understand your points without a thorough explanation.
2. Rebuttal: Debaters should challenge their opponents' arguments during cross-examination and rebuttal. This shows that you have listened carefully to your opponents and that you have thought critically about their arguments. Be sure to provide evidence to support your own arguments and to refute your opponents' claims.
3. Pace: Debaters should speak at a moderate pace. Speaking too quickly can make it difficult for the judges to follow your arguments, while speaking too slowly can be boring and ineffective.

In addition to these three principles, I also appreciate it when debaters are respectful of their opponents and the judges.

For speech-

I am looking for presentations, not just readings. I appreciate speakers who use nonverbal communication skills such as varying their volume and speed, using hand gestures and facial expressions, and moving around the stage to engage the audience and emphasize key messages.

PS. Please avoid mumbling your words even if that could be funny to get certain effect.

I wish all people good luck and can enjoy the game.

I have experience in judging Policy, PF, LD and Parli debates, as well as Speech competitions for High School and Middle School tournaments.

- Give a quick off-time roadmap before you begin. If you signpost during your speech, it'll help me follow you better.

- I may be unfamiliar with your debate jargon, so please explain any terms simplistically.

- For PF/LD - don't assume I have judged your topic earlier, so please explain any terms related to the topic.

- I will flow with you and will take notes. I will use any missed arguments in my judging.

- Please be respectful of your opponent team, irrespective of their level of debate.

- Speaker points will be awarded on the clarity of speech and thoughts and your art of laying down your thoughts.

- In your final speeches, make sure to clearly lay out why I should vote for you.

Most importantly, debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun !

I am a lay judge with very minimal experience judging policy debate. Hence, I appreciate rounds with an emphasis on clear and effective communication of subject matter and arguments.

Looking forward to it. Good luck!

RK

I am a lay judge, so please explain everything carefully and thoroughly as my debate-specific knowledge about this topic is limited.
I will base my vote on:
- whichever side proves that their harms/impacts outweigh the other and successfully refutes their opponents’ claims while defending their own (especially in the rebuttal speeches)
- Demonstrate clear speaking skills (speak slowly and clearly as I am new to debate)
- Have good presentation skills (use of hand gestures and eye contact with the judge/me)

Some additional factors that may influence my ballot:
- Help condense the debate in the rebuttal speeches and explain why your side deserves to win
- No spreading - if you do so, I will most likely vote for the other side as I will not read off of your word documents and would much prefer to actually watch you debate
- Do not be disrespectful or condescending towards any of your opponents (that includes but not limited to misogynistic, homophobic, racist, demeaning behavior). Any such behavior will merit a vote for the opposing side.
- Please time yourselves - this applies when you begin/end your speeches, cross-ex, and especially for your prep time. Make sure to alert me when each side is beginning their prep.

I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

Hello Everyone,

I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.

I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging Policy and Public Forum. When I judge, I will not read your evidence as reading a newspaper but listen to your speech. I am ok with a faster speed, but please be clear when you speak. I will try my best to remove personal biases but focusing on your arguments presented.

Hello Participant, I am a first year LD/Policy judge. Please respect and be courteous to everyone in the hall. Keep track of time. Please maintain clarity and consistency with your arguments through out the debate. All the best.

Hello!

I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.

Good Luck!

Amit

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

Cal Debate

For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…

Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.

Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.

T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.

DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years and went exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Emilio Menotti (he/him)

Conflicts: James Logan, Harker

add me to the email chain.

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

A majority of paradigms are unhelpful in the pre-round. Judges are either inflating their qualifications or pretending they are good for certain args. In an ideal world id like to think i'm a soulless flow robot thats equally good for every position, but i'm not. I have argumentative preferences and skillsets that if adhered to increase the chances of a winning my ballot. However, no preference cannot be overcome with good technical debating. I often find myself voting for arguments I fundamentally disagree with due to technical concessions and persuasive explanation.

I think debate is an awesome activity. Its changed a lot of how I think about the world and I hope it will do the same for you. If any of you have questions about debating in college feel free to reach out!

Paradigm Shortcuts:

1. Policy v Policy, Impact turns, K v Policy.

2. K v K, FW v K.

3. T, Theory.

4. Tricks.

DA's:

- Turns case arguments, aff-specific link's and ev comparison matters a lot.

- Smart DA's and case debating are some of my favorite debates to judge. Im a sucker for a nuanced econ/politics DA.

- Impact calc should start early. Aff outweighs is super convincing when Im puzzled on how the conflict escalates, why it goes existential and what actors are involved.

CP's:
- If you go for process consistently, im not the best judge for you. I haven't been in, thought about, or judged a lot of competition debates. If you choose to ignore this, slow down, line by line, and explain args rather than bombing through blocks. Id much rather judge a clever permutation than a competition debate.

- Im generally aff leaning on certainty/immediacy and dislike counter-plans that compete off it. I think they significantly lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot.

- Smart deficits that have a clear impact are super important.

- I really like smart adv cp's and find myself thinking they beat a majority of affirmatives.

- I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

T:
- Not much to say here. A majority of the affirmatives ive read were either a K aff or core of the res.

- Indicting evidence quality matters a lot in these debates and I tend to err on the side of reasonability and predictability.

Impact Turns:
- Good for it. Go crazy. These are my favorite debates to judge.

- Absent impact calc, I almost always find myself persuaded that S-risks outweigh X-risks.

- More 2N's should fiat out of aff scenarios.

- Note: Defending a K aff and avoiding an impact turn debate looks bad in front of me. If your 1AC says heg is intrinsically violent, you should be prepared to substantively debate the opposite.

Theory:
- These debates are often the most frustrating to judge. Its either because one side horrifically messed up the answer, or one side is spamming blocks because its the only win condition.

- If this is your thing...sure? If the negative is losing go for it. I find it weird to not vote on the argument when fully conceded or out debated.

- Please slow down. Trying to flow a 400 WPM condo 1AR makes me want to quit the activity.

K v Policy:
- Love it. I think that kritik's are one of the most strategic arguments in debate. I have the greatest familiarity with Cap/Setcol/Death/Afropess K's.

- Specific links to plan action are rewarded, but not required.

- The most strategic version of the K is grounded in framework. If the alt turns into a world peace CP, im unsure why it doesn't lose to perm-double bind. If the affirmative is allowed to weigh the case, I almost always default to extinction outweighs.

- For 2A's, theory is a super viable argument against the alt.

FW v K Aff:
- Good for both sides. These are a majority of my debates in high school so I have a significant amount of experience debating FW. I usually find myself thinking that affirmatives defending a topical governmental action is better for the activity. However, I realize that there is baggage that comes with the implicit assumptions within the resolution that ought to be discussed. Any K 2AC should be coupled with form and content level impact turns to FW.

- You do not need a counter-interp to beat FW. Im yet to see a C/I that isnt contrived, arbitrary, and mitigates the negs offense. If the aff wins that the negs model of debate is unethical, im confused why that doesn't warrant an aff ballot.

- I do not have a preference between fairness and clash. I think fairness is the most intuitive and strategic, but clash attached to an external impact/turns case is a super viable 2NR. While debate is a unique space that undoubtably influences our political subjectivity, Im unsure why clash isn't the internal link to changing how we think about the world.

K v K:
- These debates either make me want to read a book or cry in a corner.

- I think K v K debates structurally favor the affirmative unless grounded in some core lit based controversy. Most contrived applications of K literature in K v K debates seem super susceptible to the perm. Im yet to hear a convincing argument for why affirmatives do not get permutations in method debates.

- I have a special place in my heart for the Cap K. If this is your thing, go for it.

LD:

- Im fairly new to judging LD so go easy on me. Almost all of my thoughts about policy still apply.

- I have not seen a lot of phil debates---make sure to explain the arguments thoroughly if this is your thing.

Misc:

- Judge instruction is the name of the game. More of it will not only get you better speaker points but increase your chances of winning. If arguments are dropped, what does that mean for my ballot? Forcing me to sift through a laundry list of dropped args with zero strategic application is saddening.

- Theres a big difference between being a jerk and banter.

- If I make a decision that doesn't reflect my paradigm, please let me know after the round. I want my preferences to be as transparent as possible.

- I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating. Evidence quality matters a lot for me.

Some paradigms to look at to better understand how I think about debate: Nick Fleming, Nate Fleming, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan, Rahul Ramesh, Nishad Neelakandan, Riley Reichel.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater.

Tldr: top 5 things to know (applies to any debate event you do in front of me)

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument - details below but basically this means i'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments, and i place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison; importantly, quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence

• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language)

• doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing, & analysis, not just a card & block war)

• in national circuit style, i prefer the depth and clarity of 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [much happier with the depth in a 1-4-ish off situation] rather than full fast

• please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (you need claim-warrant-impact for it to be a voting issue - and reasoning for the voting issue when you first assert it's a voter)

everything below this line mainly includes background info, advice, and event-specific predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you focus on the basic ideas above!

**************************************************************************************************

about you:

thank you for being here and for your commitment to speech & debate! i respect your work in this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies. please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose

• policy: policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach with experience coaching all speech & debate events

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i normally judge 50+ practice rounds a year

• coaching experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-2024- policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments) + assistance for other events as needed

• 2024-present - debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty

SPEAKER POINTS

• i adjust to a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust points accordingly; on the national circuit, i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet
  
  

MOST GENERAL PARADIGM FOR ANY DEBATE EVENT: (see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

i’m a critic of argument open to most arguments (exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or create harm).

If you’re unfamiliar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, think of me as a tabula rasa judge who is:

1. tech > truth, as long as arguments have a claim-warrant-impact

2. open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up...but i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

3. will default to the best-warranted logical argumentation (analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the best control of comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

4. evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence>analysis:

• Arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Reading evidence alone doesn't trump analysis or judge direction. Instead, the quality and quantity of warrants - and the comparisons of these warrants - will be persuasive.

• Contextualized analytics with clear logical warrants / reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, etc.) easily beat evidence missing clear warranting other than having a non-impressive source.

• Flagging fallacies and a lack of warrants in opponents’ arguments moves you up the believability spectrum.

• Source quality is persuasive as a separate metric.

5. most impressed by these things (highly rewarded with speaks):

• strategic thinking in speeches and cx

• in-depth comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

• detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

• clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

• cross-examination as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

• a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos

• comparative overviews BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS (starting in the 2ac) telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus (saving all your impact comparisons for the final rebuttals seems unfair and poorly develops the debate)

General Preferences Across Debate Formats:

• rate / speed: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate. Please include the whole panel’s preferences when deciding a rate. If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. Ad hominem, rudeness, and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i won’t vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round.

POLICY DEBATE ADVICE / PREFERENCES (remember it’s all up for debate / persuasion)

• Number of off case / depth vs. breadth in arguments & cards: as a critic of argument who values argument development, you'll fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in a smaller set of quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

• CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

• Overviews: love them! impact calc and a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

• Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing, so please argue what level of impact / implication comes first and why.

• Theory: enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; limited condo (reasonable # for any access requests by opponents) is probably good, as long as it doesn't force the aff into contradictory advocacies

• no automatic judge kick for cps: waiting for the neg to pick an advocacy and i’d prefer it by the neg block

• T / framework:

• • i default to competing interpretations / models with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

  • please offer distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists, and descriptions of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, plus the *importance* of the ground you've lost; no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments

  • a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is often pretty persuasive

  • Framework specifically: what does your model of debate do? why is it better? both sides can provide a lot of clarity by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve.

  • perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 1980s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Case debate - yes! offense is great but case defense can also be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk). yes, i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should)

• K affs and K v K: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot; though i'm open to hearing K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. don’t assume i know your lit and give me strong sequencing arguments, please!

• Performance: be very specific in telling me how to evaluate it with the role of the ballot and judge; explain how your performance is uniquely valuable and effective

• Disads: yes zero risk exists; i heavily lean towards link strength + analysis ; love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency; well-explained uniqueness + link specificity > long uniqueness walls & link walls

• Ks: excited to hear Ks but i'm not steeped in high theory lit, so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those; the link story and overall position need to be clear, as well as your role of the judge & role of the ballot; please contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links alone; please separate sections (framework / perm / links / implications / alt); also, alt specificity matters and it's frustrating and unfair when debaters are evasive about their alts

• Counterplans: if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency, given that affs should have solvency

DEBATE EVENTS BESIDES POLICY:

i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• any style is fine unless your opponent requests a slow round based on access or comfort concerns

• i rely heavily on the criterion debate in assessing my decision, unless the debaters argue another approach

• will listen to theory arguments if they are substantiated and impacted

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans")as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• comfortable with traditional or progressive LD stylistically but let's be real about what's reasonable to cover with quality in a 1ar and not get too wild with the number of positions; i think depth is more important than breadth (see everything elsewhere in my paradigm about no blippy, unsubstantiated arguments)

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to or extended “enough” - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions); rebuttal speeches don't have to cover their own side's case extension but it's often wise for them to do so at least at a top level or versus core opponent arguments, just based on the time to develop quality responses being at a premium later in the debate

• can you please just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests?

• crossfire / grand crossfire are important for argument testing and argument resolution - and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should apply cx concessions in speeches if they want crossfire to be part of the decision

• theory - fine if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting theory without placing yourself significantly behind on clash, so choose wisely

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me. i'm dismayed by the paraphrasing i've seen in PF lately: paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names. These things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions. I also often see PF debaters adding their OWN power-tagged claims to these paraphrases and this really seems unethical and superficial.

• this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence…but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim.

• i won't go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round.

• you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (March 2024 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• I can go larpy or K here but I hold the line on T

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting and a tight case debate linking plan provisions / your case thesis to advantages and the weighing standard for the round; willing to apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted; either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse

Bess Olshen (she/her)

Gunn '22 | Stanford '26 | Policy coach for Gunn

Email: bessolshen@gmail.com—add me to the chain.

General: Do what you do best. I want to see debates where both teams engage in good faith and read well-researched, complete arguments. Thorough explanation is essential; I will try to leave my predispositions at the door.

Speed: Any pace is fine. I loved debating lay rounds in high school. Make sure to be clear and coherent if spreading.

Case: By far my favorite part of debate in high school. Happy to judge a lay stock issues round.

T: Make sure to clearly define terms and case lists. I find predictable limits-based arguments most compelling.

DA: Aff-specific links are best, even if analytical. Zero risk is possible.

CP: Read the CP text slower and explain its function consistently. I will default to judge-kicking. Theory other than conditionality is usually a reason to reject the argument.

K: Historical examples and complete explanations are helpful—these debates often devolve into assertions and jargon. Specificity in the link debate is key for both sides.

K Affs: I generally believe that teams should read a topical affirmative, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Clarity and consistent explanation of the 1AC are essential. I will be more persuaded by arguments about predictable limits and research burdens than those about ground, skills, or education.

K v K: Almost no experience with these debates—I mostly read policy arguments in high school. Clarity and explanation will win you the ballot.

Have fun!

past Events: high school Oratorical Interpretation (Declamation), Duo, Congress, Policy, BQ

+ College LD very briefly

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

I am a lay parent judge with a little bit of judging experience in policy.

Please no circuit arguments or spreading, and make sure to explain all of your arguments.

Remember to be kind to your opponents and have a fair round!

parent judge

do not spread or read circuit arguments

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.

I am very new to the world of debate. I would like to see clear argumentation with great delivery. Please don’t speak too fast while debating, as it becomes hard for us parent judges to understand. Extra points for strong rhetoric and good summaries of key arguments at the end. Be persuasive, but be respectful to your opponent. Please speak clearly. Best of luck to everyone!

I am a parent judge with limited experience in LD and policy. I would like all participants to speak clearly and at a pace that is easy to follow.

I am an engineer with two decades of experience in computer networking and security. Please assume I have no background knowledge of the topics being debated

My name is Oliver Suarez and I am a parent of a student in a speech and debate team.  I started judging debates last year when my son entered the debate competitions.  I have judged oral interpretation and policy debates.  

As a judge, I prefer to judge debates without spreading so I can listen more accurately to the information.  But if spreading is preferred by the competitors it is fine with me as my preference is more to the benefit of the competitors.

Parent judge that has only judged a few debates. Please no spreading and use stock issues. Have fun!!

Hello Participant,

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and logically. All the best.

Add me to the chain: gmail @ elligenetolentino

For those who don't have time, I have TL;DRs under most section headers. I encourage you to ask questions before the round!

About Me

TL;DR: I used to compete in speech; please consider me a curious lay judge

Hi, I go by Elli (pronounced Ellie, he/him). I competed in Interp at Mountain House High for about three years & graduated in 2020. Since then, I’ve primarily judged Policy on the side, but I do not have an extensive background in debate. I'm practically a lay judge who enjoys watching y'all employ strategy :)

Most of what I know about debate is from my Iron 3 Silver 1 now Plat 1 30% HS Rate ex-coach, Valorant student & friend, Arshita Sandhiparthi. Reference her page!

I want to preface that I have bad ADHD. As someone in the midst of comprehending what I couldn't before diagnosis & treatment, I'm able to flow but will struggle to keep up.

Speech

TL;DR: Good blocking & knowing your piece = W

I competed in Dramatic Interp & some limited prep (NX). I was okay at best, but I'm familiar with well-rehearsed blocking. I believe your placement shouldn’t be entirely determined by the cutting of your piece, as students may not have total control over their script cut. That being said, you control the timings of your performance regardless. Powerful speeches can emerge from bad scripts if you can read the room & navigate those 10 minutes with finesse.

I may not be familiar with any change in rules or what is in vogue. I'll go by the NSDA rules. If any external interruptions stop your speech, it won't determine your placement in the round.

If asked, I’ll give time signals. I don’t remember them too well, though, so jog my memory

Debate

1) Overview
TL;DR: I have terrible memory. It's in your favor to do anything that helps me understand the topography of the debate.

• Some basic stuff, but reiterate warrants when you cross-apply & don’t shadow-extend

• Err on caution w/ jargon; if necessary, I'll ask you to explain what something means, but take a guess from this paradigm

• I lean truth? Read the meta-debate section (3a)

• If you want to spread, go slower; Signpost & give me summaries. Pause after you finish reading a card, & slow down on taglines.

• Judge instruction is cool. Tell me how to weigh & frame the round and how to vote.
  
  

2) Spreading/Flow
TL;DR: Give me buffer time and pause when reading tags. Signpost! :)

I'm cool with spreading, but go way slower than you would with a tech panel:

• Do line-by-line. Send marked docs. Send speech docs. I'll rely on these. Include your analytics!

• Try not to spread analytics if time permits.

• I'll miss things for sure. I'll yell "clear" if necessary. Won’t dock speaks for this, but don't mumble rap

• Thoroughly explain any syllogisms & pace your speeches in general. Pausing before taglines & signposting is key.

• Disregarding your off-time roadmap tends to ruin my flow.

• I flow cross to read between the lines; remember, I'm a lay judge, not a K-hack.
  
  

3) Meta-Debate

a) truth/tech

TL;DR: simple argument easy for lay brain, but I'll try to override this.

I attempt to be tech but will err truth in-round**. Clear link chains and impacts matter. Articulate, clarify, and make understanding your warrants easier so I can read the debate.

• This article best explains my thought process on judge impartiality:
  "To all truth judges I ask you to consider this: Is my decision based on a specific articulation of a clearly marked argument made by a debater, or am I drawing information and inferences from my own knowledge?"
  
  

**note: I believe this to be a byproduct of my disability and my preference toward salient arguments.

b) theory / F/W

TL;DR: debates a game or something idk uhhh just go slower on this stuff and give me tons of tldr and use tons of hypotheticals + analogies when doing fw analysis.
the number of responses gets pretty intense in theory debates, so organize your docs like crazy. my working memory is hemorrhaging by this point so remind me what you’re responding to.

I think I enjoy it? Here's what I can say.

• Weigh between links to fairness & education. I'm more convinced that fairness is an internal link & not an impact, but that doesn't necessarily make it less preferable than an impact (nuclear war can be an internal link).

• AFAIK, condo bad because of double turns, but I don't really understand this stuff in its totality & I think debate's a game. Do what you do best.

• I like procedural arguments in general because they're easier to follow!
  
  

c) defaults

• The essentials of a default: - Condition opponents by repeating core parts of an opening - Opening looks the same, but different plays are possible - Obscure your intentions through info denial - Gather information - Maximise utility efficiency - Take map control.

ok seriously though

• counter-interps unless persuaded to evaluate under reasonability. Define reasonability for me though!

• presumption flows neg (more critically, it flows to less change)
  
  

d) kritiks

I like Ks! Just give me a summary of what you're running if it's super complex. I’ve voted on Baudrillard before & understand his lit base to an extent.

• Show me how your K solves. +1 if it's topical, but by all means, go wild

• Somewhat high? threshold for K Affs
  
  

4) etc.
TL;DR: Crystallize your arguments, tell me what's terminal. Make it easy to flow.

• If you're up against novices, be nice... Don't spread; don't be deceitful/shifty. I don't have a brightline for aforementioned things but you know ofc. If you pub-stomp them your speaks will reflect it.

• Conceding & dropping arguments make it easy to flow. Rehashing stuff that was obviously cold-conceded doesn't.

• Try writing my ballot by the last speeches. On rounds that are way above my paygrade, my flow is effectively useless & I’ll be relying on big-picture analyses & comparisons in your AR/NR speeches.

• I won't keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. Auto-loss if you abuse time, so don't!

• I find that weighing is a complex task for which I tend to lack the resources or competence, so FYI, whatever weighing mechanism you use may not supersede how I perceive the clash or how intuitive your warrants are. That said, it’s usually clear when something outweighs off vibes, lol. Check the card below

• I don’t mind something being a little blippy as long as the analysis in prior speeches was clear-cut, but try not to speedrun

lol here's the research article cut for you guys:

Elli makes simpler decisions.
Dekkers 21
"Third, individuals with ADHD tend to have difficulty investing mental effort (DSM-5, 6th criterion) and may therefore prefer not to invest mental effort in calculating EV. To save mental effort,individuals with ADHD might not base their decisions on a comparison of EVs but use easier decision-making heuristics instead. Using heuristics, parts of information are ignored to increase efficiency (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011)." For example, a study on adolescents with behavioral disorders showed that only 11.7% of them integrated all different attributes of options (i.e., comparing EVs), whereas others used simpler heuristic strategies (Bexkens, Jansen, Van der Molen, & Huizenga, 2015).

I am a parent judge.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

Consider me a lay judge, and do not spread.

NO bullying, racism, or harassment of any sort.

Prior experience as varsity LD and Congress.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ James Logan... & Parli @ UC Davis :)

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com, mittypolicydocs@gmail.com . However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

I am a parent judge.

I don't believe I can give advices on how you can better improve your skills; however, being very logical, I strive to give my best decision. I appreciate

• well-arranged and logical arguments
• how one team really listens to another and find flaws in their arguments
• respectful exchanges

Personally I don't like

• excessive repeating of points already spoken
• excessing questioning the other team's evidence without a follow-up agenda

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judges then I am also a good judge for you.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.

I will not use my ballot to resolve things that happened outside the round. Take it to tab or trusted adult coaches. Disclosure is an exception.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (7-15): 32% aff over 22 rounds, 25% aff in a theory/T debate over 4 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-2): 50% aff over 4 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

Sat 0 times of 9 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 12 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Ks

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Open to perms in method debates, but is something that can be debated. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison.

Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.

Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

2024- 2/4/2024
edit 12/19/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old. Have judged countless rounds of policy, lincoln douglass, and public forum.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:
Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:
Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:
I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afro press, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:
Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:
Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:
Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. if its bad bad, i'm hitting up your coach

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:
Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:
Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:
Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal, for real.

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

leland '22, berkeley '26, she/her

read almost exclusively kritikal arguments in high school & college, but am also down for a traditional policy v policy debate - do what you do best. yes, please put me on the email chain: iriszhou.iyz@gmail.com & lelanddebatedocs@googlegroups.com

- disads - the negative needs to have an articulate disad story. quality of evidence, recency, and link specificity to the aff are all examples of good metrics of comparison i evaluate in later speeches. + impact calc is super important!!

- counterplans - the negative needs an internal / external net benefit that isn't just "we solve better"; other than that, you can run whatever. i'm not super familiar with competition theory and probably wouldn't be the best to adjudicate an in-depth debate about it.

- topicality - for the negative, case lists go a long way in proving that your interp is a viable model of debate. not a big fan of 2nrs that collapse down to t + another off case position since that proves viable neg ground.

- framework - a big factor that determines my vote is an explanation of why education / fairness / clash / etc is your terminal impact and how it turns the other team's impact. tva's are a great defense to a k aff's exclusion da's, but i hold the negative to contextualize the tva to the 1ac's net benefits and literature.

- kritiks - i mainly went for one off in high school + college, and i'm most familiar with the theories of antiblackness, settler colonialism, cybernetics, and capitalism. i've read a bit of psychoanalysis and bataille, but am unfamiliar with other high theory k's. if you can explain it well, go for it!

- link specificity to the aff is very important, and i'd prefer not to vote on a topic link unless the aff flat out concedes it. i think that smart analytical da's backed by empirics and contextualized to the aff is often more persuasive than card dumping generic topic links in the neg block. i also love re-highlights of aff evidence as links / link boosters.

- the negative's alt explanation is crucial, and the aff can persuade me heavily that the alt is not viable with smart cross ex questions & analytical pushes.

- k affs - i pretty much exclusively went for k affs, so do your stuff! some things i look for from the aff: why your advocacy is net beneficial; the method of the 1ac & why the ballot is key; the role of the judge and role of the ballot.