Byron R. Arthur

Holy Cross School

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 a teacher 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 (Updated for Harvard Workshop July 2020)

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.

Do not assume that because I am a lab leader that I am 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 30 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument.

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.

UC Davis 2024

He/Him/His

Email Chain: tjbdebate@gmail.com

Online Debate

Please slow down on analytics. It is really hard sometimes to hear debates online so doing this is purely for your own benefit.

Qualifications

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I had 5 career bids and I participated in the 2020 eTOC. I placed pretty well at some well-known national tournaments my senior year and I have been judging and coaching for College Prep for the last 3 years. I worked at the Cal National Debate Institute this past summer so I am pretty familiar with the topic area.

People that Shaped my Debate Philosophy

Christina Phillips, Mike Shackelford, Jon Sharp, Chris Paredes, Michael Wimsatt, Cade Cottrell, Christian Bato, Jyleesa Hampton, Nate Fleming, and Kelly Ye

Top Level

Debate is a competition, but education is intrinsic to the discussion that takes place.

Line by line is important so please try to be organized. I do not have a perfect flow, but I will do my best to catch every argument. Please flow on paper if you can, especially if you are younger or really trying to improve. I get that the world is digital, but unless you are a savant at multitasking, it is much more effective to just flow on paper.

Write my ballot at the top of the 2NR/2AR and set the thresholds for victory or else I will try to piece together the round looking for the easiest way out sans calling for cards. Tech over truth within reason.

I will not vote on blatantly problematic arguments and will likely punish you via speaker point reduction if you make them. Anything that is done that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of everyone in the round will result in an auto loss and the necessary disciplinary actions will be taken.

Just do you and I will listen intently. Please just do your best and I will adjudicate as objectively and effectively as possible.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages

Be explicit and clear in the impact debate. I want good and warranted impact comparison with tons of turns case/turns disad arguments at the top. I also want explicit link debating with an extension of warrants and not just a repetition of the tag for the link. Politics disads are great but I would like a somewhat coherent link that is topic or aff-contingent and not just a generic "new bill saps PC" or "new bill kills focus" argument.

Counterplans

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 counterplans, 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 too 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 interps is important. I think that intent to exclude is more important than intent to define regarding predictability, but this is only marginal.

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.

Kritiks

I like Kritiks, but I really hate when teams do not do the work that is necessary to make a cogent argument. I think that the alternative is the hardest thing to win, and more often I vote for teams that invest a lot of time and good ink on the framework debate and one or two solid, specific pieces of link offense against the aff. The more specific link is obviously better. I also think that it is possible to win absent case defense, but only if you are winning the correct framework offense.

Planless Affs

I think that my thoughts on the K apply here with a bit more nuance involved. I prefer that the aff be related to the topic and that it actually does something that is a departure from the squo. Framework is a good strategy, but if executed poorly, the aff will have an easy time getting my vote. The neg must also answer the aff because it will be hard to win framework without contesting the method of the 1AC. I am most likely to vote for whoever consolidates and focuses on a central point of offense and impacts it out better.

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 third year judging, mostly in policy and PF 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 one 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.

Like to see debates where people keep a story straight throughout.

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 3rd year judging debate and speech tournaments.

For debate-

My vote is based on the following two principles.

First , I would like the debaters to deliver their arguments with clarity and supporting evidences. Take your time to explain to the judges. It doesn't score if the judge doesn't capture your arguments.

Second, do challenge your opponent's arguments during the cross-exam. Provide evidence to support your own arguments. If you don't challenge, I assume you agree with your opponents.

Beside, I rather like the speakers deliver their arguments with clarity but not pushing on speed.

For speech-

This is a presentation, not just a writing. I enjoy more when the speakers apply nonverbal communication skills, such as change volume and speed, use hand gestures, facial expressions and body languages to draw audience's attention and emphasize the key messages.

PS. I don't like people mumble their words even through that could be funny to get certain effect.

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

I am a parent judge and have some experience of judging Policy, PF, LD and Parli debates as well as Speech competitions for Middle and High School.

For novice tournaments -

- Please time yourself.

- Either give a quick off-time roadmap or signpost during your speech.

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

- For PF/LD - don't assume I have judged the 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. During this time I have primarily judged debate events remotely. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along.

Good Luck!

Amit

Email: acmrquez@gmail.com

Affiliations: downtown magnets high school & 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. I default that procedural fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my emulation 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.

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Qualified and broke at the TOC and won a handful of circuit tournaments. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

95% of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. Doesn’t mean I wont vote for a policy argument, just means depending on how technical the argument is it might require a little more explaining compared to other judges. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way.

I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

about you: thank you for being here and for your commitment to this activity! before we even meet, i already have so much respect for you - for your time spent working on this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies! i'm here to listen and respond and will put 100% effort into that for you during your debate / performance! 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 policy debate & spontaneous events speech coach at Leland High School in San Jose; have coached 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 for all speech & debate events; experience coaching all of them

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

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i judge 50+ practice rounds a year for our team

• coaching areas / 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-present - policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

most general paradigm for all debate events (please 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 you might want to advance (see exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or seem to create harm) with more policy strat experience than K experience and very little high theory experience.

• i used to run Ks on the neg but my experience as a competitor was before K affs really hit the scene, so though i'm open to hearing K affs and have judged some K v framework and K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. i'd say 90% of my judging experience - just based on types of tournaments judged and the timelines for those - lines up with either policy strats or Ks on the neg as opposed to 10% K affs / clash rounds. see details below for more of my thinking on K affs & framework debates.

• unless persuaded into another vantage point and role, i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

• If you're not familiar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, it’s probably most helpful to interpret it as a tabula rasa judge who is open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up but who defaults to the side with the overall best-warranted logical argumentation (with well-substantiated analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the side with the best control of clear comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

• i think this is not much different from what a lot of coaches a few decades into the activity are saying except that i flag it as what we used to call it (critic of argument paradigm): yes do line by line, yes tech > truth, but also get out of your blocks and compare stuff; it's not just having a solid line by line or having more arguments or flagging that they dropped more than you did...but saying why your line by line is better and why your arguments >>>.

• Typical concerns about a critic of argument paradigm are: How do we know the judge won’t intervene? What are “quality” arguments? Is this just a strategy contest comparing the first constructives? Nope. Here are some other core beliefs which check against those concerns and provide more information on how i judge argument quality:

• tech > truth: i vote off of the flow guided by your comparisons of argumentation strength and your assessment of the significance of arguments extended or dropped… with the caveat that the tech (right out of the gate, not just by the final rebuttal) needs to have clearly articulated substance (claim-warrant-impact) to be a voter. dropped arguments are true, provided they were originally presented as a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

• evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence automatically being weighted over analysis: Quality evidence (breadth and strength of warrants, relevant source with expertise for the claim at hand) is important to me. So is analysis. Contextualized analytics with clearly isolated warrants demonstrating logical reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, argument by sign with clear justification for the link, or other clear categorical reasoning) easily beat vague evidence missing clear warranting other than having a source. Evidence with more warranting > evidence with no warrant other than the source. However, source quality is persuasive as a separate metric. The basic point here is that 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. Warrant breadth, isolation, and application via analysis is persuasive. Flagging fallacies also moves you up the believability spectrum.

• the best stuff as far as i'm concerned (highly rewarded w/ speaks and tipping me towards your side before you apply any other particular structure or goal to the round):

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

  • in-depth discussion and 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-ex 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 - which breaks the speaker / audience barrier a bit, generating audience goodwill and communicating empathy which elevates your speech acts / projects

  • See below under particular event paradigms for specifics according to common argument categories.

• i love comparative overviews telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus, starting some of this party BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS
  
  

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

• rate: 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 [see special note below - command F Debating for Panels - about mixed panels / local lay tournaments though! i want you to include / consider the whole panel!]

• for online debate, a caveat to the above: due to the special constraints of judging online (home wifi issues, multiple windows / programs to manage on the computer while tracking the debate, etc.), i really prefer a moderate rate of delivery at most - what i view as about a 7/10 vs. full-speed TOC-style rounds. feel free to run a quick pre-round calibration w/ me to get a baseline as i realize this is subjective.

• 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. You can be assertive, authoritative, and forceful without being dismissive or rude. Be inclusive and respectful of others' expressed concerns. Consider the assumptions behind your claims and arguments carefully as well as their impact on all involved. Ad hominem and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior that seems intentional or that's repeated without apology / recognition after an objection is raised may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i am not going to vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round. this includes any flux time before or between rounds at tournaments. this is not to say that you can't use examples about what a team has *run* at other tournaments to substantiate T or theory or credibility arguments or to add pressure about a team's authentic advocacy during cx based on their prior arguments; feel free to do that

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

the commentary below isn't meant to be prescriptive but instead serve as guideposts - the thinking i'll tend to apply absent specific guidance on an issue; you can always make a push for me to see it from your perspective! in that case, what i wrote about my default paradigm (critic of argument) comes into play for how to best persuade me into a particular vantage point

NATO topic experience:

• some policy-focused strat familiarity and experience: i led a middle school policy debate workshop this summer on this topic. we focused on policy strats and the NFHS / NSDA novice case areas.
• i spent some time reviewing various summer camps’ literature and doing personal research; this was also policy-focused
• year-long involvement with our team's policy strats in lay and mixed judge pools
• some involvement with our varsity teams' circuit K affs but mainly at a narrative / case consideration level (not steeped in all the lit bases)

Style / Approach: Your rate, style, and argumentation are your own decisions (with the caveat above about mixed / lay panels as well as thoughtfully considering any expressed concerns for access and content). i'm happy to hear about whatever you think is important. i do especially enjoy thorough case, theory, and T debates, but i'm no more likely to vote on them vs. other positions.

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

• it’s your call, but as a critic of argument who values argument development, i'd say you'll generally 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.

• if your shell is undeveloped and under-highlighted, you will have a lot of catching up to do in the block and i won't be filling in conventional blanks for you on missed steps in a disad or K shell. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in fewer 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! i think impact calc and setting a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues you're going for 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 arguments, so please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter. escape your own perspective enough to make comparative claims

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on *tagline* theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo / judge kick unless 2nr advocates it but sympathetic to 2ars if that happens and definitely open to advocacy shift arguments on that; please warrant any "drop the team" arguments heavily

T / framework

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

• i REALLY dislike the trend toward underdeveloped standards and warrantless voters. i prefer instead to hear distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists and articulation of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, and the *importance* of the ground you've lost.

• i have no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments so long as you warrant them.

• i think a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is a pretty straightforward approach as long as you are articulating why this outweighs

• 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 80s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Framework specifically:

• K affs which focus on impact turning education args have been pretty compelling to me

• both sides can provide a lot of clarity for me by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve

Case debate

• yes please; i love a good case debate (not to say that a K cannot access this love...but i enjoy hearing about the fundamentals and nuances of a case)

• yes i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should) and case defense can be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk, forefronting your own arguments)

K affs: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear articulation of method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot

Performance specifically: i've judged very few rounds of this; you'd have to be pretty specific in telling me how to evaluate it and the role of the ballot and judge

Off case generally

• no real preference for what you run (Ks, DA/CP, whatever else) but looking for strong analysis of the evidence and well-developed overviews clarifying your impacts / implications and overall position starting in the 2N

Disads:

• yes zero risk is a thing; i heavily lean towards the link strength of your evidence + analysis (critic of argument lens here is relevance + significance + proof)

• love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

• yes, no problem, excited to hear these but i'm not steeped in high theory lit so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those particular arguments for me

• the link story and overall reasoning of the position need to be clear, as well as your suggested role for me as a judge and the role of the ballot

• love and reward debaters who do the work to contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links

• i really prefer a structured debate here (clear sectioning of framework, perm, link debate, implications, alt, etc.)

• long overviews are fine and probably most helpful in resolving the ballot as long as you get to the line by line to justify and substantiate the overview work

• in a pretty balanced debate, aff probably gets to weigh their plan and neg probably gets some offense from their discourse
• i need to hear details about what your alt is and does to give it much weight; evasiveness is hecka bad for your ballot odds

Counterplans

• if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with something like 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 affs should have solvency

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

New affs bad isn't usually persuasive to me. i don't reject it out of hand but it's an uphill battle. i value research and innovation. T, significance / impact weighing, and args against the evidence quality are probably better ways to go if you think their new aff is abusive or bad.

Disclosure theory is similarly uphill; as a coach who believes in the life skills of debate, i believe you should have a generic strat and some confidence in your analytical skills. i will vote neg on analytics or logical application of general evidence to a specific case, so you're not disadvantaged in front of me by not having case-specific evidence. i don't think there's information you're definitively owed before the 1ac speaks...nor are you owed time to prep with a coach before your round given that your opponents may not have that opportunity...though i do think reciprocal agreements should be respected and any disclosure misdirection i can verify / observe will result in low speaks at a minimum.

SPEAKER POINTS

• i try to fit into the rubric of a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i tend to defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust accordingly; in circuit, certainly 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 (because i’m here for you and you can be a little here for me - and 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 rounds if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• Generally, i think 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 from above 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

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

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

State Quals / NSDA National Quals / Panels with Lay Judges: i'm an educator who believes in access and participation. If you go warp speed, choose a hyper-technical style, and / or present esoteric arguments and in doing so exclude a lay judge, i will be peeved and your speaks will be low. i'm fine with you picking a moderate rate and trying to hit the middle most of the time by occasionally getting more technical, but i'm a proponent of including all your critics. i also see a value in lay debate and stock issues, so if you do that, i'm not going to be bored or think you're not a smart debater. This isn't to say i believe you must take a stock issues approach to mixed panels - just saying i'd recommend you err towards what includes the panel's understanding of debate.

debate events besides policy: i primarily coach and judge policy but have coached and judged all debate events; my paradigm below has sections for LD, Parli, & PF; you might want to read the Policy section above to get more insight about particular positions; ask if you've got questions...but 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:

• i've most often judged traditional / "California style" LD but i'm open to other styles

• my default is to look for contentions which are clearly impacted to the criterion based upon warranted, high quality evidence and / or analysis

• will listen to theory arguments and consider them if they are substantiated and impacted...but also...i will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules such as "no plans" / "no counter plans") in those particular settings if a student raises an objection regarding event rules

for PF Debate:

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

• my rfds - absent guidance otherwise - tend to hone in on how the debaters resolve the framework of the debate and the relative weight of their impacts

• cross-fire / grand cross-fire are very important to me in terms of argument testing and argument resolution and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should carry these concessions or other components into speeches and weigh them out in the context of the round's framework / objectives / core claims if they want cross-fire content to be a voting issue

• theory - sure if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting such arguments without placing yourself significantly behind on clash

• 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 amount of paraphrasing i've seen in the event 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; 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 am not going to 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 (Feb. 2023 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:

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting as well as linking plan provisions / thesis to benefits or the agreed upon / debated out goal of the round

• will apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy and clash

• 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 with demonstrable impacts

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

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: I have never judged this topic before, so make sure to clearly define terms and case lists. I find predictable limits-based arguments most compelling.

DA: Judge instruction is especially important when evaluating the different parts of the 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. Fairness is the most compelling impact to framework, but it must be explained well. 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!

I'm a college freshman rn.

Events: Oratorical Interpretation (Declamation), Duo, Congress, Policy, BQ, + College parli and LD very briefly

- I've seen PF before though so I am fairly familiar with structure, but guide me through the framework of how to vote in PF --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

- LD/Parli: Please guide me on how to vote/what to prioritize according to the rules of your debate --> aside from that apply the relevant parts of my paradigm in the policy section

Have fun and run what you want as long as it's not offensive/discriminatory or blatantly false.

If the debate isn't policy please treat me like a parent judge and apply the relevant parts of my paradigm, however feel free to speak at a faster pace.

I am as tabula rasa as humanly possible. You may refer to me as "judge" or by my first name if during the round.

If the tournament is primarily fast, do a fast round. If a tournament is primarily slow, do a slow round. If you do want something different make sure that you tell me and ask permission from your opponents.

x<26 --> you said something horrifying!

26-27 --> more speech drills

27-28.9 --> average/good

29 --> great

30 --> god

Policy:

Keep the debate clean and sign post. I'm good with pretty much any argument. Don't try to run anything you don't know well enough

- give an off-time roadmap, FOLLOW the roadmap while you're speaking

- keep your link chains clear

- I will not vote on anything if I notice you dropped it

- Don't be slimy (DO NOT say that your opponent never answered something when they clearly did, DO NOT misconstrue your evidence, DO NOT misconstrue your opponents evidence, DO NOT make up a fact, DO NOT hand me a graph or chart you made)

- Impact calc is very important, tell me why this outweighs the other. Write my ballot for me

- Explain your warrants, don't just extend something without explaining why it's still relevant or which argument it applies to

- If you bring up new arguments in the rebuttals, especially the 2ar, I will be very annoyed and refuse to consider them.

Don't be racist/sexist/egotistical. You'll get the lowest possible speaks if you are and chances are I'll vote you down.

Circuit Policy specific:

If you run T/Framing/Theory please thoroughly go through the voters and standards and explain why I should vote for you based off that. While you're running T/Theory slow down on the voters/standards so I can actually flow it.

*I'm not stable on K's so please explain them well and slow down

I'll avoid looking at the speech doc unless absolutely necessary but BE CLEAR. I will call "clear." However if I have to tell you more than three times through the entire debate >:(

bonus for actually reading my paradigm which sucks:

+ 5 speaks if you judge strike me

here's my linkedin if you want to connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yong-ooi/

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

Email: firstnamelastname@gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Background:

• I did high school debate in my junior and senior year.
• I competed in LD, Parli, PF, and Policy, among other events.
• I went to TOC in PF and I was ranked 10th in the nation for Parli.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abridged Paradigm:

DO:

• Run any argument you want
• Be kind and polite
• Tell me how and why you win this round

DO NOT:

• Make up evidence
• Drop arguments
• Forget to have fun

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete Paradigm:

Arguments to run:

I have little preference to what arguments you choose to make. I am always open to hearing about new, unique, or unorthodox arguments. This is a space for you to learn; freely experiment with your rhetoric. That said, I am more familiar with some arguments more than others. Below is my level of familiarity with each kind of argument, starting with most familiar.

1.) Case / Policy debate.

2.) Theory.

3.) Kritiks.

4.) Philosophy.

5.) Anything else.

How I evaluate arguments:

Case / Policy Debate

I really enjoy listening to and judging this kind of debate. I am very comfortable judging this kind of debate and love to see a good debate in this style.

From the affirmative, I want to see

a.) unique and fleshed out advantages with strong inherency, links, and impacts

b.) a well developed plan

c.) bulletproof solvency with evidence that absolutely confirms the plan's efficacy

d.) a brief underview that neatly summates your affirmation of the resolution.

From the negative, I want to see

a.) disadvantages to the plan, with links specific to the aff and significant impacts

b.) a competitive counterplan that gives an alternative to the aff's plan and avoids the status quo

c.) a potent deconstruction of the affirmative's solvency advocates

d.) an underview that explains why negating the resolution / affirmation is the best idea.

This style of debate is largely self explanatory. Just tell me why the policy is good or bad. Prove it with evidence.

Theory

I can appreciate a good theory debate. I cannot appreciate a bad theory debate. Before you use theory, consider:

1.) is it frivolous?

2.) is it because of something outside of the round?

3.) can you meaningfully continue the debate without theory?

If you answered yes to any of these, do not run theory. I do not entertain frivolous theory as I believe it kills the educational value of debate. I cannot accurately judge theory based on events external to the round, as I was not there. I will only accept theory if you cannot meaningfully continue the debate without using theory. If you evade my limits on using theory, here is how I evaluate theory.

a.) Give me an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

b.) Show me why it is so critical to add this meta-layer to the debate.

c.) I believe in RVIs. Though, convince me why the other team should lose if they lose the theory shell.

I don't mind theory. I just so desperately want it to be valid and not an unnecessary detraction from the debate. Follow my preferences, both in spirit and text, and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Kritiks

A good kritik debate is always enjoyable. I am not as familiar with the literature and the arguments stemming from them, so I will need you to explain the thesis analytically throughout the debate. Here is what I would like to see in a kritik debate.

1.) I want a good link to the affirmative. Give me a direct line or proposed impact from the aff that links to your kritik.

2.) Give me real and quantifiable impacts. I understand the difficulty due to the esoteric nature of many kritiks, but if you can give me something I could weigh objectively, it makes my evaluation much easier.

3.) Alternatives should be grounded in some reality. Telling me to vote neg is a terrible alternative. Give me either a proposed shift in thought or action, something avoids the harms of the affirmative.

4.) Affirmatives should be topical. That doesn't mean no aff k's, just topical aff k's. If you can do this, I will evaluate it to the best of my ability.

5.) ROTB's are interesting, but really sell me on it. I am less persuaded by my ballots significance the further away we are from the finals.

I love kritikal debates, I am just not very familiar with it. Give me explanations throughout the debate, as I find the literature to be very dense and difficult to understand the first time it is yelled to me at 400 wpm.

Philosophy

These debates are perhaps the most interesting to me. I am currently pursuing a philosophy minor, so I find these debates to be very enjoyable and entertaining. Yet, I ranked this lower on my scale of familiarity, since I have found the way debaters to use philosophy to be bizarre and alien. Ideally, you explain a philosopher's ideas, how it is relevant to this round, and why it supports your symbolic affirmation or negation of the resolution. In practice, it is used as a "gotcha" to scare unfamiliar debaters with dense and confusing literature. If you are to use philosophy in your debate, here are my rules.

1.) explain, thoroughly, what the philosopher's ideas are

2.) demonstrate why these ideas are relevant to this round

3.) show me why these relevant ideas would give me reason to affirm or negate the resolution.

That is all. Philosophy is a way of understanding and making sense of the world and our place in it, helping us to question our assumptions and beliefs, and to gain a clearer and deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Use it earnestly and use it wisely.

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 mostly in LD. 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.

Hi, I competed for about three years at Mountain House High & graduated in 2020. While I erred towards speech/interp, I have some experience in PF and LD(rudimentary at most). Please consider me lay! I’ll try my best to adapt to progressive debate and keep an open eye on things.

Most of what I know about debate is from my Iron 3 Fade Main 30% HS Rate God-Tier Util Slinging Gunfight Taking coach & friend Arshita Sandhiparthi.

Add me to the chain: gmail @ elligenetolentino

I’d like to preface that I have a learning disability. As someone in the midst of comprehending what I couldn’t before diagnosis & treatment, I’m able to flow, but I will have a tough time keeping up. Some advice:

• Signposting, reading the tagline & card name slowly, & tldr-ing your points can make or break whether I’m able to follow.

1. If you’re referencing/cross-applying cards during neg block, 1AR(at any point for that matter, really), it would be nice to point out which speech it came from.

• If you use jargon, don’t assume I know or can infer what it means. Take what you can from this paradigm & err on the side of caution.
  
  

TLDR; My working memory is shot. Do anything & everything in your capacity that you think would help you and I figure out what’s happening in the debate(i.e.: Don’t shadow-extend because I’ll probably miss it)

General Debate Paradigm:

Spreading

I’m ambivalent about spreading; I find that spreading makes debate more inaccessible to newer debaters. So:

• Keep it at a minimum if you choose to.

• Inevitably, I’ll miss a thing or two. I’ll say “clear” if I need you to slow down/enunciate slower(skill issue tbh).

Truth/Tech

I’d like to emphasize that clear link chains and impacts matter more to me. Articulate, clarify, and make understanding your warrants easier so I can get a better read on where the debate’s headed. That being said, I attempt to be tech but end up erring truth in-round*.

• This article best explicates 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?” Look, I will objectively retain more salient, intuitive arguments, but I’ll try my best to override this.

• I don’t mind warrant debate, but I ask you not to get too hyper-fixated on it. Whether you indict evidence or yours post-dates it would be cool to hear a refutation anyways(given time)

Norms(specifically on disclosure & open source theory)

From my friend Vishnu’s paradigm:

“Breaking norms in most cases is not abuse. I'll go by what is in the explicit CHSSA/NSDA rules. Besides, how do you expect a debater to know about these norms at their first invitational?”

• I’m certainly not absolute on this, so if you prove to me why certain norms must be abided by for newer competitors alike, I’m more than happy to hear.

Theory

I think I enjoy it?

• I don’t fully understand framework debate, but here’s what I can say.

1. If possible, weigh between your links to fairness & education

1. I’m more convinced that fairness is an internal link vs. an impact, but that doesn’t necessarily delineate it as bad/less preferable than an impact(nuclear war can be an internal link to anything)

2. I’m inexperienced and thus impartial to competing interps vs. reasonability. Explain as best as you can!

• I dislike condo, but I wouldn’t mind(and am very much open to) hearing substantive debate on it.

Kritiks

I’m cool with Ks, but I’d like an explanation/a short thesis on what you’re running if it’s super niche.

• Please establish the solvency mechanism for your K. I prefer for it to be topical to res, but I won’t rag on you for running something wild.

• My threshold for (most) Planless Affs is high.

Etc.

• Please eventually crystallize/give me a big picture. Line by line makes my life easy, but following it pedantically only serves to muddy the debate for me.

• I plead that you write my ballot by summary & from what you’ve collapsed(and do collapse), reiterate what you find most valuable in FF.

• I will not keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. I’m usually chill on this, but I will give an auto-loss for clear abuse.

*note: I believe this to be an unintentional byproduct of my disability.
Yes here's my card brah, I’m linking a research article: “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).” The cognitive load of weighing can be intrinsically complex for me, so just know that how you outweigh may not supersede how you clash.

I am a parent judge.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and policy 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, 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 @ Logan, & brief Parli debater @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.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 certainly open to K arguments/ affirmatives. When attempting to change my default paradigm, debaters must overcome my skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in their framework. I want to know what I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, and texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, 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 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.
• 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 26-29.5. 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

Add me to the email chain - kellyye16@gmail.com

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, or you will not like your speaks.

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 judge then I am also a good judge for you).

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 > K vs. Policy > K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.

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 ;(.

General Things

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

*Outside of the blatantly offensive arguments, but I think that's obvious.

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 tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me. Top level framing and cleaning up the debate for me >>>>>>>>. This makes it infinitely easier for me to resolve debates, but I'm seeing less and less of this in 2NRs/2ARs that I've judged recently. You will be rewarded with inflated speaker points for simple framing at the top that includes phrases like "You're voting aff this round because x, y, z" or "Even if they're winning x, y is true."

I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.

Obviously I'm fine with speed, but it seems like people have forgotten to sign post or slow down on tags/analytics. I'll clear at most 3x, but if I'm missing important stuff you'd like on my flow, that's on you. 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.

My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.

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: Having advocacy in the direction of 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 “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. 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.I usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy.

CPs

Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.

I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. 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."

PICs good

Smart solvency deficits >>>>

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.

To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“

Topicality

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, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

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.

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, which you can read about under the "General Things" section above.

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.

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

did policy debate for 4 years in high school as a 1a / 2n; competed in lay & fast tournaments. mostly debated kritikal arguments in my junior & senior year on the national circuit, but often read policy strats at lay tournaments and nats !

yes, please put me on the email chain.

email title format: tournament name [round #] - aff team vs neg team

top level:

- pretty much fine with anything as long as you explain it well, but be respectful - i will not tolerate any arguments predicated on any -ism / -phobia.

- tell me how to vote by framing the round: whether that's through impact calc, rob/roj, framing, etc, a winning 2nr / 2ar should be articulating clear ways that I can write my ballot.

- i typically won't vote on cheap theory shots as long as the opponent has an answer; the exception is if the other team flat out drops it or if in-round abuse is real.

- speed is fine, as long as you're clear & articulate.

policy:

- 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! tell me which impacts to prioritize, how to frame the round, etc with warrants!

- counterplans - the negative needs an internal / external net benefit that isn't just "we solve better"; other than that, you can run whatever. please note that i might not be super familiar with topic-specific cps.

- unfortunately, i'm not super familiar with competition theory and thus 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 plus another off case position since that kind of proves there is viable neg ground.

- framework - in addition to what's mentioned above about topicality, 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, and i'm most familiar with the theories of afropessimism / antiblackness, settler colonialism, cybernetics, & capitalism. i've dabbled in a bit of psychoanalysis and bataille, but am mostly 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 rehighlights 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 also mainly went for k affs in high school, 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

- performance k affs are very cool; also make sure to extend a net benefit for the performance

other debate events:

please explain event-specific jargon or arguments. you can largely cross apply my judging philosophy for policy !