Tabroom.com

The Princeton Classic

2022 — Princeton, NJ/US

LD Varsity Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Akilah Akridge Ridge High School 6 rounds

Donna Anderson Pennsbury High School 2 rounds

Jorman Antigua Collegiate School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:22 PM EST

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Kristen Arnold Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 15, 2023 at 7:12 AM EST

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

Theory

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

Stephen Bamberski Pennsbury High School 4 rounds

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM EST

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Megan Butt Charlotte Latin School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 8:32 AM EST

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Mildred Castaneda Syosset High School 6 rounds

Vedansh Chauhan Millburn High School 4 rounds

Annie Chen Scarsdale High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 31, 2024 at 7:51 AM EST

New Update for NSD:

Harrison '22

Columbia '27

Email: nniechen44@gmail.com –- no, there isn't a missing 'a' in the email.

Hey, I'm Annie (: I'm a third year out and study financial economics and mathematics in undergrad.

Please slow down to 60% and explain topic-specific jargon. Since it has been a lonnng time since I've heard spreading, I will call "loud/slow/clear" as necessary without penalizing speaks. That being said, note that I will only evaluate arguments that are a] properly warranted and b] I have flowed.

I debated for Harrison across three years 2019-22, qualifying to the TOC with four career bids, a few round robin invites and championing a couple finals bid tournaments. I briefly taught a session at VBI '22 but keep in mind I haven't been actively judging in the past two years. When I debated, I loved readingidpol Ks including some literature on Asian-American, Black feminist, and Indigenous scholarship. Please substantiate your theory of power and explain your literature clearly---I will not fill in knowledge gaps! I want you to be genuine with what you are reading.

I would much rather debaters read what they're most good and comfortable with than hearing a K be poorly executed. If you must read T or theory, make your arguments smart and original. Try your best to have fun and good luck!

Longer Older Version

ac5180@columbia.edu

Quick Prefs:

Identity Ks - 1

Non-T & Performance - 1

Soft Left Ks - 1

Policy/LARP - 3

Pomo Ks - 4

T & Theory - 4

Tricks - strike

General

- Leave Debate better than how you found it. This is the most important thing I can say

- Explain everything assuming I know nothing about it---this goes beyond K literature! You must do the work to explain your theory of power and I won't fill in gaps just bc you're reading something common on the circuit

- Idpol Ks and performance are some of my favorite and best positions to judge. That being said, I'll judge anything you want to read with the exception of tricks so read what you're most comfortable with

- Weighing and judge instruction tips the scale in your favour. I hate implicit clash and won't make unprompted cross-apps for you

- Argument quality > Argument quantity

- All arguments need a warrant ("presume aff because 67463 time skew" is NOT a warrant!)

- Don't say something is evidence ethics unless you're stopping the debate and staking the round on it

- I won't tolerate racism, sexism, ableism or bigotry of any kind

Procedurals

- I think slowing or clearing your opponent is fine for accessibility

- Flex prep should majority be for clarification questions

- Signpost

- Disclose is good but make yourself engageable if you have a reason not to

- Look up because I’m pretty expressive

My advice to win in front of me

- You should believe in your arguments in some capacity. This means do not read silly arguments like a prioris or moral skep!

- Talk about something that matters

- 3 offs for less for them to be sufficiently developed

Things I'll reward with higher speaks

- Kindness

- Make me laugh

- Sending analytics or just any notes you have that can make your speech easier to follow

- Not spreading if your opponent isn’t

- Spending a lot of time on the aff if you’re negating

- Reading high quality cards

Andrew Chin Stuyvesant High School 6 rounds

Wolf Cukier Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 3, 2023 at 11:56 AM EST

(Last updated November 2023)

Princeton Update: I have not judged LD since Princeton last year — please go at about 80% speed — I will SLOW and CLEAR with no penalty though.

Hello, I'm Wolf (he/him). I debated LD for Scarsdale High School 2016-2020 and am in the Princeton Class of 2024 and (sometimes) compete in Parli debate. Email: wolfcukier@gmail.com.

Generally I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible but we all know what that means changes on what our biases are so here is my paradigm.

VLD:

Overall I will try not to be biased against any arguments that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semetic, etc. That being said, I debated in a relatively narrow way and will probably be better at judging what I debated.

Quick Prefs:

Tricks: 1

Theory: 1/2

Phil: 1/2

LARP: 2

Ks: 3

Trad: 4/5

General Stuff:

The only rules of debate are sides, speech-times, and the existence of the topic (this does not mean you must follow it, just that there is a difference between reading something for the current topic vs. anything else).

I will flow off the doc, assuming you sent it to your opponent. Flowing was one of my weak points as a debater and I don't think that my lack of skill should negatively impact you when I am judging.

I will say SLOW or CLEAR as many times as needed without docking speaks. If you need to SLOW or CLEAR your opponent, do so, but be aware I will be annoyed if you are faster or more unclear that your opponent when you called them on it.

I have a very low threshold for extensions: If no ink was put on your NC, saying "extend the NC" or "they dropped the NC" is sufficient for me to consider it in my decision. That being said, you should still probably flesh out your extension more so I know how to use it in my decision but if it is obvious, I generally wont penalize you.

Defaults:

These are only defaults--not biases (I think some of these are false but are the most equitable to assume)-- to be used if no one even vaguely mentions one of them. If someone initiates a debate on one of these arguments I will evaluate the debate from a blank slate. One theme you might notice in these is when you initiate something like theory, you must be sure to justify the paradigmatic issues for the round.

Truth Testing (this might actually be a bias)

Permissibility Negates

Competing Interps

Yes RVIs

Edu and Fairness not voters

Drop the Arg on Theory, Drop the Debater on T

TT does not take out theory.

If an argument explicitly indicts another, it comes 1st (assuming the indict only goes one way).

Text > Spirit

I will not default to presumption except explicitly triggered.

Tricks:

I read these pretty much every round I could get away with them. As long as something has a semblance of a warrant I will probably vote off of it if it was won. That being said, please be honest about them in CX. If someone asks where your a prioris are and you say "whats an a priori" I will be slightly annoyed (unless obviously played as a joke). Also, most tricks do not survive any encounter with a response — the attempt to win that the US really is a landmass when your opponent caught it will most likely fail.

Theory/T:

Go for it. The only brightline for what counts as frivolous theory is what you can justify in round. If you can win it, I'll vote on it. See above for my defaults. Be sure to implicate the theory shell in the round-- you still need to justify drop the debater or why fairness is a voter. Be sure to weigh between standards.

Phil:

Looking back, this is the area of debate where I wish I invested more time in. I generally should have a sense of what everything is but the less well known in debate a philosopher is, the more you should explain it. Feel free to run high theory but the only real high theorist that I read was Deleuze.

LARP:

Be sure to justify Util or whatever framework you are using if you are running LARP, but besides that I should be good for this. I generally don't give as much weight to cards as other judges for things like analysis so just be aware of that. I generally read LARP in rounds where I could not get away with a more abusive strategy but always shied away from LARP v LARP debates. If you get into one of those card-fests-- weigh!!!

Ks:

Feel free to read these but be aware that I never really read them when I was a debater. My knowledge of most K lit is sorely lacking so you probably need to explain stuff to me more. I also probably care more about the line by line in this debate than the average K judge. I do think K debate is valuable and will do my best to judge it well but I probably lack the skills and background to do as well of a job at this as you would like me to if you run Ks. (That was a mouthful of a sentence).

K update: Note that as I’ve been judging I’m finding I appreciate Ks a lot more than when I was a debater. The above still applies but if you are a K debater, read a K in front of me.

Speaks:

Speaks will be awarded for strategic debate, executing a strategy that I am not good at judging cleanly (like clearly winning a K in front of me), and generally doing a good job.

Speaks will be lowered for poor strategic decisions, failing to collapse where prudent, problematic statements or args that don't rise to the level of dropping you, not weighing, and making the round impossible for me to judge (not just b/c it was messy-- messy rounds happen, but no one reading a standard for instance or having two competing standards with no clash)

I will try to average a 28.7 and to give a 29+ to everyone I think performed well enough to break. (update: its higher)

NLD:

In these debates I expect that no one talks above a fast conversational pace.

Morality = Justice (Please don't debate between these two)

PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!!!!! Oftentimes the round comes down to whoever weighs more.

I evaluate the round by first picking the framework which is best won and then voting for the debater with the most offense under that framework.

I will listen but not flow CX

In Novice LD I expect nothing to be more tech than contentions. If you know what DAs or CPs are you can run them as contentions.

I have a low threshold for extensions- If your util FW is conceded and there is no opposing FW "extend the util FW" is sufficient

NPF

I am a LD debater so there are some things I am not used to in this activity

I evaluate the debate under an offense/defense paradigm. This means that winning that your opponents offense is not true is sufficient.

Please weigh between your offense and your opponents offense.

Michelle Dai William G. Enloe HS 2 rounds

Laura De Olden The Lawrenceville School 4 rounds

Chintan Dixit Thomas Jefferson HSST 6 rounds

Jayanne Forrest Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 12:59 PM EST

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

This paradigm is old, I don’t coach or attend tournaments anymore because I am in medical school.

TLDR: I did debate in high school, coached debate and taught at debate camps for 6 years. My last debate round judged/observed was in 2023, so go only 60-75% of your speed if spreading and make sure you are clear. Read good arguments, keep it original.

—————

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies with honors.

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. Please remove it from the case/docs. There is impact to reading “evidence” that makes anti-Black violence a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS. Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is an academic speaking activity.

Rajendra Galagali Thomas Jefferson HSST 6 rounds

Lashanta Givens Pennsbury High School 6 rounds

Donna Hastings Pennsbury High School 2 rounds

Liping He Millburn High School 2 rounds

EJ Hermacinski Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 28, 2023 at 5:45 AM EST

Name: EJ Hermacinski [would prefer to be called “Judge” in round, though]

Pronouns: she/her

Affiliation: Princeton

how do you get the default font please i hate this

put me on the email chain! emmajean at princeton dot edu

TL;DR: Good theoretical knowledge but little practical knowledge of LD [see below]. tech > truth unless you’re ridiculous, go 80% of your top *clear* speed. Argue whatever you want, but make sure you understand what you’re arguing. WEIGH.

Debate experience: I debated parliamentary in high school but accidentally went to policy debate camp at Michigan [hilarious story] and developed a love for NSDA debate from there. I watch rounds and read paradigms for fun. At Princeton, I do APDA and a bit of BP, but have continued to brush up on NSDA rules. I judged VLD at the Classic last year and had a great time / felt fine judging people at speed.

For the pref sheets:

T/Theory: 1-3 [depends on the specificity of the claim, generic calls are more on the 3 side]

Larp/Policy: 2

K: 1. I am a good judge for a good K. see below:

I am a strong 1 if your K is:

Something you actually understand, care about, and can explain
Has a specific, well-warranted link

I am a Political Science major with two minors in regional studies. I have probably read at least some of what you are reading. If your K is inaccurate to the literature, it will not impact my ballot, but it will probably impact my speaks. This is not true of 95% of Ks read [all the Ks I saw at the Classiclast year were great!] but it's an important note going in. Conversely, if you run a good K, I'll probably speak you quite high :)

Phil: 3 [slow down for your analytics]

Tricks: My good friend Wolf Cukier convinced me that sometimes these are kind of cool. I'd put myself at a 3 for this, higher if you're willing to explain what you're doing a bit more.

Speed: Go about 80% of your top speed, both because I’m not sure if I’ll understand you well and because debaters often aren’t as clear as they think. Like many judges, I will clear you 3 times before I stop trying to flow what I can’t understand. If your opponent asks you to slow down, it’s imperative that you do.

Miscellany:

I will call for evidence if I feel it’s critical to the round, but don’t expect me to go crazy with it.
Weigh, weigh, weigh. Do it and you’re cool [if you do it best, you’ll likely get my ballot].
Signpost as much as you can without being excessive.
No need to bash skulls in if they dropped an argument, just point it out and move on

I have a lower tolerance for snark in debate than some. Be polite to all, in and out of round. Additionally, be equitable. If you wouldn’t make an argument about a group if a member of the group were in the room, don’t make it. Excessive rudeness and inequitable behavior will leave me writing a clean ballot for the other team.

Have fun! If you do, I probably will too.

David Herrera Hire 6 rounds

Chetan Hertzig Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 7:26 AM EST

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Andrew Hong Montville 6 rounds

Isaac Jennings Thales Academy MS - Apex 6 rounds

Jonathan Jeong Meadow Glen Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 4:27 AM PST

Update for Princeton Tournament:I haven't judged or kept up with debate in the past two years. I still have high confidence in judging policy and K rounds, but anything else will require more explanation than you might usually give to a judge who's active with the meta. I however don't really care to have debate opinions anymore so I am happy to evaluate anything.

Email: jj4485@princeton.edu

General description of how I evaluate debates.

1] I exclusively debated policy (including topicality) and K in high school. I evaluate all arguments, which has a claim warrant and an impact in the first speech presented but the further you are from how I debated, the less comfortable that I am. I am best for policy v. policy, clash debates, good for T vs. policy K v Ks, ok for phil, meh for everything else.

2] I view debate through a lens of relative risk (magnitude of impact * probability of impact). Weighing arguments bring up the magnitude of an impact and are usually not preclusive filters. If you win that X outweighs Y, I will not evaluate the round on who has a stronger link to X but consider X to have a higher risk. This means that weighing arguments (K vs. theory, warming vs. nuke war, predictability vs. limits) all still need to put defense on the other impact. The exceptions are non-consequential Ks and phil frameworks.

3] This means that I strongly value well-warranted arguments. Risk starts from 0 and goes to 100 with how well you warrant it. A well-warranted, dropped argument has near 100 risk. Good evidence or historical examples bolster empirical debates such as K and Policy (although good evidence alone without spin wont help you). Well thought out logical syllogisms will help in phil debates (don’t require cards as much because of the abstract nature of these debates).

Specifics: All of below can be changed with good debating.

Policy—Not much to add here. I am somewhat worse for convoluted politics disads than other judges. Agnostic on whether I think agent counterplans, process counterplans, states are competitive. Tend to think competing off certainty and immediacy are illegitimate. Near impossible to convince me that international fiat is legit. Any advantage counterplan that doesn’t fiat negative action (US should not go to war) is legitimate. Object fiat is not a real thing. Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality and unless the aff contests conditionality, I will judge kick.

Ks—Strongly dislike overuse of buzzwords. Bad for framework arguments that make it impossible for the aff to win. Good for links indexed to the plan with root cause, links turn aff arguments. Fiatted alternatives should lose to permutation double bind. Good for alternatives that have a framework argument and establish competing values from the aff. Bad for utopian alts that say that people should be “nicer to each other.” Good for any aff offensive strategy (extinction outweighs, link turn perm, da to the alt). Affs should mercilessly attack the alt. Terrible for Ks that ripoff Afropess when your cards don’t make an ontology claim.

K aff vs. Fwk—Personally think debate has value which is why I spent so long doing it. Good for K affs that re-define words and have a coherent counter-model. Worse for affs that impact turn everything (although I get why it’s strategic with LD’s short 2ARs). Great for fairness and clash. Bad for skills. Hard to convince me that fairness and clash aren’t impacts; can convince me other things matter more. Terrible for five second arguments that debaters treat as TKOs (ci: your interp plus our aff, truth-testing).

Theory—strongly dislike frivolous shells. Hard to convince me that all theory is DTD. Very persuaded by DTA and reasonability. Unwarranted 1AR shells that blow up in the 2AR are unbelievably bad. Think counterplans should be resolved at competition, not theory. Need argumentation for why an argument makes it harder to answer other layers of the debate; otherwise it’s a reason to drop that individual argument.

Phil—I like good warranted phil debates. My understanding is quite bad in these debates admittedly which means that extra judge instruction, warranting, and weighing is needed than if you debated in front of average east coast judge. Agnostic on epistemic modesty vs. epistemic confidence. Personally think nuclear war matters more than lying.

Extraneous thoughts:

Likes (will help speaker points)

Strong historical knowledge/examples

Tasteful snarkiness (see below)

2NRs off paper

Innovative strategies

Dislikes (will strongly hurt speaker points)

Scripted 2NRs and 2ARs

Unfunny/just rude snarkiness

Shiftiness

Shadiness about disclosure

Being rude to novices (don’t think you have to debate down whatsoever but don’t be rude)

Throwing a water bottle because you lost a round

Matthew Jojy Livingston High School

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EST

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.

LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Kihwan Kim Livingston High School 2 rounds

Tanish Kothari Scarsdale High School 5 rounds

Crawford Leavoy Durham Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:36 PM EST

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Austin Li Lexington HS 6 rounds

Vik Maan Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM EST

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

Jessica Manley Medina Senior High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 27, 2022 at 4:47 PM EST

About me:

Hi, my name is Jessica Manley and I am affiliated with Medina High School in Medina, Ohio.

I currently judge Lincoln Douglas and have experience judging and competing in Public Forum. I've been judging for Medina for 5 years and competed in PF for 4 years during my time as a student there. In my time competing, I also learned and practiced Lincoln Douglas and Congress.

About the debate:

I prefer a traditional style of debate, but am able to follow more progressive strategies. As for speed I am fine with any tempo, but am not a big fan of spreading. I value content over presentation, but definitely take presentation into account. I prefer organized speeches with sign posting.

I award speaker points based on presentation, ability to articulate, command of the debate, and preparedness. Speakers who demonstrate they are well-informed on the topic, make clear articulate arguments, and use their public speaking skills to engage the audience will be awarded high points. In my experience, I have always awarded the winning team the highest speaking points because most often the best arguments require articulation, understanding, and clarity.

I do not judge solely on speaking skills. I mainly focus on which arguments stand at the end of the round and, of those, which arguments hold the most weight/impact. I decide the winner of the debate on who, at the end of the round, presented a better case for their side. The winner will have the most convincing arguments, which to me means the most compelling and impactful points.

I do flow the debate and keep notes throughout to help me make my decision. As far as evidence goes, traditionally Lincoln Douglas is a philosophical debate. Evidence is not necessary, but it can be a helpful supplement to the debater. The debater should not rely on the evidence as their argument. As long as there is a claim and a warrant that is well constructed, evidence is not needed. If the debater is using evidence, I do take into consideration the context and credibility of the source.

Cross-examination should not be used as another speech. Use the time to ask questions and let your opponent respond, don’t cut them off.

Patrick McGhee Holy Ghost Prep

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 9:56 AM EST

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

Uma Menon Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 2, 2022 at 2:56 PM EST

I debated Lincoln-Douglas for four years at Winter Park High School in Florida. I'm currently a junior on the Princeton Debate Panel competing in American & British Parliamentary Debate. I don't judge LD regularly anymore.

TL;DR: I strongly prefer traditional debate. Be inclusive and respectful!

Accessibility: Please do not spread or run tech against novices and debaters who are not familiar with it. Debate should be accessible.

General argumentation: I mainly debated traditional LD on the NCFL/NSDA circuits, and greatly prefer this style. I will vote off of my flow. Since graduating, I judge LD infrequently though I compete in parliamentary often. I'm not the best for evaluating tech debates.

I will presume an argument is true until proven otherwise. If the argument is poorly warranted, though, a quick response is sufficient. I have a low threshold for extensions. I'll try to flow cites, but summarizing the argument is more useful than restating author names. Point out drops, but you don't need to spend a lot of time on it. Signpost as much as possible! I quite dislike unwarranted and high-magnitude impacts, i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

Rebuttals: No new arguments in last speeches. I think voter issues are helpful, but not necessary in all rounds. Weighing is also very important - if you don't weigh arguments/impacts, I will not weigh them or intervene.

Speed: Some speed is fine, but I should be able to understand you without much trouble. No email chains or flashing - I won't read your case.

Tech/Theory/Topicality: I will not vote on frivolous theory. If arguments are truly abusive (if you establish that there is abuse), then I will vote on it. That being said, I'd rather you just point out the abuse and explain it; shells are not needed. I don't enjoy tech debates and strongly prefer traditional argumentation.

Framework Debate: I like framework debate and think it's very important. Explain why your V/VC wins, and why you win under the framework.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other form of discrimination will not be tolerated. Please be respectful and have fun! And please feel free to ask me any questions before the round, I'm very happy to clarify anything!

Casey Meyer McDowell HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 8:14 AM EST

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I've worked in developmental disability care since graduating.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity. Be topical (on the resolution)- I'm fine with K's and the like as long as you link it somehow to the resolution (I'm liberal with this). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it. Explaining dense concepts to me, ESPECIALLY THEORY AND KRITIKS (please and thanks) is necessary if you want me to understand and flow your case.

If I'm judging you in PF , I vastly prefer on-case, topical arguments that have thorough link chains. The chance I will vote for your K or progressive way of argumentation in PF is drastically lower than if I'm judging Policy, Parli, or LD. Arguments in PF need to be easy-ish to digest or it totally kills the 'Public' aspect of it.

I don't do email chains. Convince me with your words and voice, not the text you send me.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!) That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. Check before round and you'll be Gucci 2 GoGo. I give 2 quite clear warnings for speed/clarity before I decrease speaker points.

Nihilistic/depressing (read; 'pess' arguments) arguments made for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told). I can (and have in the past) overcome this bias but be aware you should be weary running an argument like this without being thorough with your link chain.

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

For LD, I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy if I'm judging you in LD.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique (more details, quirks, ways to implement, etc) the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters quivering rn)

Disclosure theory by itself is boring and I almost will never vote solely for it. I genuinely don't care if you do or don't disclose pre-round unless it's required for the tournament. Linking to T/standards violations/ something else otherwise than just disclosure is necessary for me to flow any kind of Theory like this. If you're using 'theory lingo' when discussing T and expect me to vote for the newest Reddit meme strategy, you're almost def wrong.

If you can't explain your K, theory, or other argument without 'debate lingo' and obscure links to weird one-off heavily progressive arguments you probably shouldn't run it with me.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Dana Mollica Half Hollow Hills HS East 6 rounds

Anne Morel Princeton 2 rounds

Leo Mullin Holy Ghost Prep 2 rounds

Elizabeth Murno Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 10:32 AM EST

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns

I debated LD for 4 years at Harrison High School and I teach at NSD. I debated natcir but i love trad :)

My email is Lizzie.murno@gmail.com

If you are able to, please do not read util in front me. If you only read util, please strike me. I hate it. I really don't want to hear about how I am going to die regardless of if we affirm or negate. I have been hearing that extinction will happen in debate for 6 years now and I really do not want to hear it anymore. Obviously if you only have access to util because you are a small team or cut all your own prep I will not hold it against you, but if you are able to read a more nuanced argument then please do because I am tired or pummer.

Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.

Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 2/3

Phil - 4/5

LARP - 5/6

Tricks - Strike

Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, fem Ks, and cap Ks.

If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.

If you have me and aren't a K debater I would love it if you had some soft left K aff (basically implementation of the resolution but impact to structural violence, or a ROB about equality. Just. Not. Util.)

Larp

Larp can be done well, but I will just never get on the Util bandwagon - if you win it I'll vote on it, but I certainly will not be happy.

I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times).

T/Theory

I read Ks but that doesn't mean that no K is abusive. Give me a good TVA, one that is specific to the K (if you don't have one because they didn't disclose, tell me that). Theory can be really interesting to me if you know what you are doing and I enjoy a good extension of each part.

T against non T affs should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate. I also think that you should though some impact turns/critical reasons being non t is bad. in the shell.

Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively.

Phil

I am a philosophy major which means that if you read bad philosophy to me (i.e. you are unable to analytically justify your fw and rely on cards that make no sense) then I will definitely vote you down. I do not understand the way that a lot of people read phil in LD because you don't have a set of premises and a conclusion.

For Novice LD:

- Novice debate is really challenging in the beginning so don't worry! I will try to help as much as a can with my reason for decision (RFD). Ask me any questions you have after the round.

- Feel free to run any argument you are comfortable with as long as it is explained, links to the winning framework, etc, I will probably vote for it.

- Novice rounds are usually messy (It is okay, you are new!), just try to explain all of your arguments, why that means you win, and how you link to the winning framework.

- I want clear voting issues at the end or during your speech.

- I want some big picture arguments explaining what the neg/aff world's would look like (especially in util debates.)

-Overall, have fun with it and try your best!

Jacob Palmer Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM EST

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Kris Quallich Medina Senior High School 6 rounds

Kenneth Rieger Summit HS 2 rounds

Stephen Rochkind Bethesda Chevy Chase 2 rounds

Claire Schmeller Medina Senior High School 3 rounds

Zachary Siegel Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 4:03 PM EST

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!
Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.
I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.
Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.
I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.
I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.
I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.
I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.
Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Alexander Sorgini La Salle College High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:54 AM EST

Email: asorgini27@gmail.com

Hey everyone! I graduated from high school in 2022, after four years of speech and debate. I am most familiar with LD and Extemp.

Special Note for JVLD:

You likely are just starting out/have only a little experience in the event and that's ok! My advice would be to try to learn as much as you can from your rounds. To that end, don't be afraid to ask questions if you are unsure of speech times or something similar. Feel free to read the below info but it may not apply to you until later.

For LD:

Putting this on top: I don't necessarily assume that extinction outweighs everything else. I never bought the idea that an infinitesimal chance at extinction (very high magnitude) outweighs a lesser magnitude with much higher probability. I understand how extinction weighing arrives at that conclusion with a magnitude of "infinity" and all. That being said, if this is a straight circuit round, I accept that this is the standard assumption and will follow your weighing arguments as such. If this is a trad round, though, be prepared to defend that to a much higher degree. Especially in a trad round, I am more receptive to arguments with impacts proportionally tied to the resolution rather than a forced link to extinction.

Traditional arguments: I read a lot of more traditional arguments especially when I competed on the local circuit. I am always up for a more traditional round.

LARP/Policy: I am most familiar with LARP/Policy arguments. Plans, CPs, and Disads are all great!

Kritiks: Probably not the best judge for you if you are running Kritiks. If warranted, I would vote for a K but your level of explanation will have to be higher. Especially if you are a novice, you need to really understand what you are reading or you won't be able to explain it to me.

Theory: I am fine with theory but I believe it should be reserved for when actual abuse has occurred in the round. I am not a fan of frivolous theory.

Topicality: I strongly urge you to be topical.

Speed: I don't love spreading. I can understand reasonable speed (you don't have to talk conversation level or slower). If you spread excessively, you risk me not catching crucial information. I'll let you know if you're going to fast, but just keep that in mind heading into the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Shelby Stinson Pennsbury High School 2 rounds

Praphulla Suryawanshi Unionville 6 rounds

Melissa Swauncy-Coleman Boston Latin School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:59 AM EST

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Teja Vepa Collegiate School

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 8:23 AM EST

Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:

My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail

Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:

Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)

Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)

Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)

Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)

2023-24 Topic Specific:

I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.

Paradigm for NSDA:

As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.

I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.

Specific Argument Types:

DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.

CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.

K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.

K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.

T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.

Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.

Questions:

Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Daniel Wang Bergen County Academies 2 rounds

Zi Wang GHS 6 rounds

James Xi Millburn High School 4 rounds

Qian Xia Princeton 2 rounds

Michael Zhou Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 7, 2022 at 9:18 AM EST

Princeton '24, Cypress Ranch HS '20, pronouns are he/him

tldr;

Debate how you'd like to debate, I'll try to be as tab as possible. I'd like to think I'm not partial towards or against any specific styles of debate. At the end of the round, I'll make a ballot story for both sides, and compare the two, and vote for the "truer" one/one that involves less intervention. I've debated LD all of HS, on the national circuit for 2 years. If you care about winning for qualifications, I did bid.

more thoughts;

I'll generally think about the framework/weighing of the round first, unless it's clear it doesn't matter. Then I'll evaluate whoever has the stronger impacts.

For phil, I believe in persuasive, comprehensive, and cohesive methods of analyzing morality. I believe if your fw is strong, conceding a single 5-word spike probably shouldn't trigger skep or losing the layer. The better fw probably explains why that fw would create more good in the world, or is more accurate/has been more accurate in creating good.

I think a good K framework should be clear on the extent to which the judge has obligations outside of evaluating resolutional arguments, & also your characterization of the world/how debate fits into it. A good K framework should explain why adhering by the kritik's principals and world-view is more important than the materiality and specificity of the opponents case. In K vs K, I think the better K remains grounded throughout, explaining why their worldview will, in the end, help resolve more problems/create more good.

In T/Th, a persuasive argument will motivate how their shell will improve debate. Be very specific with problems in debate you can solve/improve. A 10word phrase like this -> "fairness outweighs education bc unfair arguments make the round's education bad" isn't very compelling/nuanced. I believe a good t/th debater will collapse and explain the specificities of the round, why the violation in this round outweighs continuing debates like this round, have a clear story, examples, weighing, etc.

I'm cool with tricks though i don't think tricks are generally a good strategy

more technical things:.

Any questions, please email michaelzhouabc@gmail.com or message me on facebook (my profile pic is a duck).

^^use that email for email chain too

I'll look at cards if you ask me too in ur speech

Prep time ends when the doc is compiled, as you begin sending it out

If someone is cutting cards, you need to record, and I'll stop the round after

Speaks:

25 - I'd probably say what I thought you did was bad/wrong after round. For example, you miscut, you're rude, etc.

27.5-28 bad strategy (you're going for link and impact turns), no collapse, no clue what you're ballot story is, bad technical arguing (conceding entire offs)

28-28.5 ok strategy, mediocre collapse (going for several main arguments on one off), muddled ballot story, mediocre technical arguing (several conceded arguments)

28.5-29 solid strategy (specific links, specific responses, well built case), solid collapse, good ballot story, good technical arguing (1-2 conceded arguments)

29-29.5 great strategy (innovative case, predicting opponent arguments, forcing opponent to match you), fantastic collapse, fantastic ballot story (specific to opponent's case), fantastic technical arguing (no conceded arguments, multiple responses per key argument, etc.)

29.5+ I think you'll be in finals or winning.

Login to Tabroom

The Princeton Classic

2022 — Princeton, NJ/US

LD Varsity Paradigm List

Judges