I am a parent judge. Please debate about the topic and avoid progressive arguments.

Please:

1. Speak clearly and with persuasion
2. Give voters
3. Weigh

Have fun debating!

email for the chain: rainabatra@gmail.com (send docs as word docs (.docx) if you send out your speech doc as a google doc or pdf or body of the email etc. i'm deducting 0.5 speaks for accessibility reasons.)

general:

please weigh.

please extend impacts into your rebuttal speeches with links and warrants and link them to the framework and weigh them. the easiest way to win is to write my ballot top to bottom for me in your speech.

when i say clear, it means slow down or i stop flowing and your speaks will not be breaking 28. it is not a suggestion. i am not a flowing robot. i need to hear your arguments to vote on them.

instead of reading blocks at each other, go through and line by line. this makes the debate resolvable.

it is really obvious when you are stealing prep, especially in person. you are not slick.

i am going to start docking points for excessive time wasting. the round should be over in 45 minutes. if it isn't, whoever is the reason it wasn't is getting their speaks docked. an ld round on paper should only take 40.

i have my preferences on this paradigm, but i am not the type of judge to reject an argument because i don't like it. i will vote on almost anything. fundementally i believe the round is your space. i can and have voted on positions i hated listening to. i will let you know how much i hated it though.

i will not vote on something if i cannot explain the argument back to you at the end of the round. this also means i am unlikely to vote on something that was 10 seconds in the 2nr/2ar.

if you decide to leave the room during a prelim before i give my rfd, i will not be giving an oral decision and will dock speaks. it is not my job to come and get you or wait for you to come back.

my coaches who influenced me as a debater and as a person- amrita chakladar, david asafu-adjaye, brett cryan

non-ld events should scroll to the bottom

shortcuts:

policy - 1

t/theory - 1

k (cap, psycho) - 2

tricks done well - 3

k (not cap or psycho) - 3

friv theory - 4

phil - 5

trad - 5/strike

tricks done badly - strike me and spare both of us please

disclosure:

i believe disclosure is a good norm for circuit debate. i will happily vote on disclosure shells.

topicality/theory:

i’m more willing to vote on topicality than most judges.

i am very happy to vote on evidence ethics. you can either read a shell or stop the round.

not a fan of friv theory (think spec shells), will probably be annoyed with it but won't auto-drop it. my threshold for responses is low, though.

if you need accommodations, please email both me and your opponent at least 30 minutes before the round, or within 5 minutes of the pairing coming out. i will only vote on related theory arguments if this occurs (not guaranteeing i will vote on that theory, you would have to still win theory). i.e. i won't vote on spreading consent theory.

policy:

i was a policy debater most of high school and this is what i am best at judging.

please weigh. specifically evidence quality/methodology of studies. spewing cards at each other is not resolvable. tell me why your evidence is better.

yes put recuttings in the doc! i love that! you don't need to read them, but you do need to explain the implications of your recuts.

fine for process cps, pics, agent cps, etc.

ks:

i am not a great judge for most k debaters. i will not do work for you in order to give you the ballot, and i probably don't have the background knowledge of your lit that your blocks assume. i also am not that well versed in the nitty-gritty of technical k debate. my brain is small. i need to understand your k to vote on it. that means you should probably err on the side of more simple and extensive explanations to get my ballot. i.e. if you're running a k, get ready to stand up and explain it to me like i am 5 if you want me to vote on it.

i understand cap. i learned psycho for just the toc my senior year, so i have an ok understanding. anything else you should explain super well. a non-extensive list of things i can understand as long as you explain and walk me through your ballot: cap, psycho, setcol, security, fem, model minority, weaponitis, and pess.

please please please stop reading baudrillard in front of me.

love impact turns.

phil:

i am a bad judge for phil debate. i am not up to date on the meta. i.e. i am more likely to make bad decisions because my understanding of phil in debate is probably different than yours. i will be sad, you will be sad, and it will be very unfortunate for everyone. you should err on the side of over-explanation for very dense phil / less common stuff.

phil debate can become bad debate very fast. i don't want to judge that.

tricks:

i’m probably an above-average judge for tricks, but badly done tricks are just annoying and not fun. i will most often only vote on a trick if it's dropped or if you're uniquely good at going for it. my threshold for responses to tricks is low.

trad:

i would prefer not to judge trad rounds. if you choose to have a trad round, i will evaluate it like a trad judge (not flowing). i would very much prefer to judge circuit arguments. on average, my speaks in a round with progressive arguments will be much higher. i feel like at most natcirc tournaments, "trad" debate isn't true trad debate but rather just bad debate, which i do not want to see. at the same time, i have a lot of respect for good trad debate, i just don't have a long attention span, so if you can do circuit debate, i would highly recommend it in front of me.

speaks:

i think i give average speaks, i'm definitely not one to inflate them. i give 30s a few times every tournament, and most good debaters will get good speaks in front of me. making the round interesting will boost your speaks. a messy round will not be nice for them. i will reward those who don’t read off docs.

i'll disclose speaks if it is not against tournament policy, just ask because i won't do it if i am not asked.

i won't evaluate lazy attempts at speaker points theory.

rewarding students with speaks for food/drink is really gross to me. in lieu of that, here's how you can get more speaks!

ending a speech early/taking less prep time and still giving a good speech (+0.1 speak per minute, you have to tell me)

let your opponent borrow something they need (+0.5)

add a pic of a dog (ideally yours) to the doc (+0.3)

be a generally nice person in round (+0.1-0.5)

being funny (depends on how funny you are)

other events

policy: i did policy at one tournament in high school and cleared (ncfl). i generally understand how the event works. my preference are pretty similar to how i judge ld, but i won't hear tricks or any similar shenanigans in this event.

worlds: i did worlds for three years in highschool. i semi-finaled nsda nationals in this event in 2022. i know how the event works, i will flow. please weigh. absent weighing, principle > practical. i don't care about style no matter what the rubric says. i know motions can suck at worlds tournaments so i will keep this in mind.

pf: i don’t want to judge this event. if i do, please spread, please read extinction impacts, please read theory, please read cps. i will judge it how i judge ld.

It is the responsibility of any judge to set aside personal biases, which I strive to do in full during any round of debate.  When I state that I am a traditional lay judge from an area that debates slower, I do not mean to imply that particular cases will be immediately discounted for their criticality or theoretical examinations of the event.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the debaters within the round to convince me of the superiority of their argument.  In determining a round, it should be considered that the entirety of the argument must be coherent and open to discussion on both sides.  In other words: please do not spread in a round without disclosing your case to myself and your opponent.  Debate is not particularly educational at excessive speaking speeds.

 

For deliberation, I look toward the flow of the debate itself.  While I expect that debaters are capable of tracking arguments and defending their cases, personal remarks or excessively abusive language may have an impact on deliberation.

 

Email:

beckman@mtsd.org

Trial Attorney.

I am new to judging and appreciate clear communication, a slow to moderate pace will help me keep my notes in order to provide a fair judgment.

I am new to judging and appreciate clear communication, a slow to moderate pace will help me keep my notes in order to provide a fair judgment.

please be nice to me, i am but a simple fool

but for realz y'all, this is early early in my debate judging career (aka the first one was princeton '22) so, in the words of adele, go eaaaaaasssssyyyyy on me

you have free will, but i do not know what a counterplan, a k, a disad, or theory are so don't expect me to understand those. i only know these words because my girlfriend know what they are and told me to write them

for everyone's convenience, please give roadmaps and sign posts as you go and speak at an understandable/intelligible speed. don't expect me to read your mind or do your work for you. that kind of defeats the purpose of this whole "debate" thing

if you're sharing cases, my email is lcoilparampil@gmail.com

if i give verbal RFDs, please write them as we go

Harrison High School '22

Include me on the email chain please: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hey! I'm James Cox (He/Him), and I'm currently a senior at Harrison High School, in Harrison, New York. I primarily compete on the national circuit, but I am also familiar with the traditional debate. If I am judging you, you're likely a novice, in which case below are some things that I'd like to see in the round. If you are a more advanced novice, please don't try to debate "circuit" just because you think I want to see that. I am tech>truth for the most part, but I have 0 tolerance for racism, sexism, etc., and I have no problem dropping someone if an argument is made that is harmful to other bodies within the space.

If you and your opponent are frequently competing on the national circuit, here is the link to Chetan Hertzig's paradigm. I agree with 99 percent of everything said here.

Hertzig's Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

novice rounds:

1. WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. PLEASE. Novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. Signpost! Please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when you're responding to your opponent's.

3. Give voters! Write my ballot for me.

if you have any questions about anything written here, please email me or ask before the round! Debating as a novice can be scary, so I'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs.

I'm on the Princeton Debate Panel and compete in American and British Parliamentary Debate. I have experience judging and debating World Schools, but have never done Lincoln Douglas Debate.

As such, I have a strong preference for coherent, well structured arguments that I can follow, and spreading will likely work against your interests.I will also not read cases that are emailed/ flashed

I am not comfortable evaluating tech debates (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.), so run them at your own - significant- risk.

Debate needs to be a safe and equitable environment and as such racism, sexism, homophobia and any other form of discrimination will not be tolerated in any form.

Please feel free to ask me any questions before rounds and above all have a fun learning experience :)

Bonus points for creative arguments and quips!

I am a high school debater who likes a traditional round.

I vote contention based as well as values and weighing. Tell me why your case matters more. Make sure what you are stating is clear and concise. If you don't understand your argument I won't either.

I am able to keep up with a fast speaking pace as long as you articulate your words.

I wish you all good luck in your rounds!

Judging History

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF before. This is the first time judging LD.

Preferences

Please speak slowly and please use common terms.

If you want to send documents in advance, my email is jsfang@yahoo.com.

Hi everyone!

I'm a Sophomore at Princeton. I've debated in the following formats: WSDC, BP, Asians and APDA.

Limited experience with LD, but a ton of experience with debate in general, so I have no real familiarity/preference for more technical, niche aspects of LD debating. That being said, if you intend to run theory, feel free to do so, but provide a little explanation if possible. If you can help it, don’t spread, but if you do I’ll try my best to keep up. I will NOT read your cases if you email them - I'll just flow as fast as I can. For other LD tech, just realize that I can’t vote on it if I don’t understand it.

Try to keep your speaking speed to a clear, understandable level - I’ll signal you if you’re speaking too fast, but I won’t dock speaks for it, so don’t worry about it too much. I’ll try to flow your arguments regardless, but signposting and making clear arguments also makes it much easier for me to follow and vote on your arguments. Most importantly, focus on warranting, impacting, and weighing your claims so that I can give them as much credence as possible. Explaining and supporting the logic of an argument, as well as showing how it interacts with your opponent’s case is just as important as making the argument in the first place. I won’t intervene in most cases or take excessive steps to interpret your arguments.Try to interact with the issues in the round and present your arguments with clear structure, and you’ll be fine!

As a judge, I hope to see you all construct well informed, sound and valid arguments. More importantly though, remember to have fun!

Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.

4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.

P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????

-Ms. Granchi

.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

7. Please do not run a non-topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

Hi! I'm Shawna Grossman (She/Her) and I'm a parent judge. My daughter does varsity LD so I am familiar with the basics. Please go slow and be cognizant of the fact that I am not a debater myself, so some of the debate terms might need to be simplified/explained. Please remember to be kind to your opponent, because at the end of the day debate should be fun.

I need to see clear weighing. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and note vote for your opponent. I don't want to have to guess, so tell me exactly what to do. I'll vote based on that.

For speaker points: Please be clear and slow. I need to be able to follow what you are saying. Be confident, it will show in your speaking if you are.

I'll try to give as much feedback/RFD as possible but again, I'm a parent judge with no debate experience myself so please be understanding.

I am a parent judge. 

I will try to be as unbiased as possible. Please make clear points and over-explain their significance to me.

No spreading please. I will be unable to catch your arguments so refraining from spreading is in your best interest.

Please number and label your contentions clearly.

Please read only lay traditional cases to me. Make sure to weigh your points and link them back to a framework. I value framework debate a lot, because without a framework, good and bad are arbitrary.

Your speaker points will start at 28.5 and vary based on how articulate your arguments are.

 

I am on the Princeton Debate Panel, competing in American and British parliamentary. I have done World Schools Debate, but I have never done Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread; I also will not read cases that are emailed/flashed. I am not comfortable evaluating tech debates (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.).

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!

Hello! My name is Rahul Kalavagunta (He/Him/His) and I’m currently a third year student at Princeton. I debate both APDA and BP in college, and I debated a parli format (DANEIS) in high school.

Limited experience with LD and PF, but a ton of experience with debate in general, so I have no real familiarity/preference for more technical, niche aspects of LD/PF debating. That being said, if you intend to run theory, feel free to do so, but provide a little explanation if possible. If you can help it, don’t spread, but if you do I’ll try my best to keep up. I will NOT read your cases if you email them - I'll just flow as fast as I can. For other tech, just realize that I can’t vote on it if I don’t understand it.

Try to keep your speaking speed to a clear, understandable level - I’ll signal you if you’re speaking too fast, but I won’t dock speaks for it, so don’t worry about it too much. I’ll try to flow your arguments regardless, but signposting and making clear arguments also makes it much easier for me to follow and vote on your arguments. Most importantly, focus on warranting, impacting, and weighing your claims so that I can give them as much credence as possible. Explaining and supporting the logic of an argument, as well as showing how it interacts with your opponent’s case is just as important as making the argument in the first place. I won’t intervene in most cases or take excessive steps to interpret your arguments. Try to interact with the issues in the round and present your arguments with clear structure, and you’ll be fine!

For the pref sheets:

I heavily would prefer if you just argued straight on the topic (traditional debate), but I understand the format is given to certain strategies, and I certainly won't penalize for that.

T/Theory: 1-3 -- this depends on how well explained it is. I'm not fully up to date on the meta/in depth details of theory, so if you run something, explain it and all shall be well

Larp/Policy: 2

K: strike -- if you are determined to run a k, run it, but be aware that I really don't understand them and will be hard pressed to even recognize one, much less vote on it.

Phil: 1/2

Tricks: I will try not to dismiss them out of hand, but I'm highly skeptical

The above stuff was specific to LD, but a lot of the same applies to PF. I'm willing to do my best to understand any argument / strategy you run, as long as you're able to explain it.

One last (important) thing: Absolutely NO being sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc - a safe, respectful environment is essential to a good debate round. This is especially true for Cross Ex -- don't be rude, cut people off (within reason, obviously), and argue in good faith.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate.

Hello!

My name is Samuel Kligman, and I am a freshman at Princeton University. I debated for three years in the West Texas NSDA Circuit. I have broken, made finals, and placed at various UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments in both Congress and Public Forum. While I will list my paradigm below, please note that I prioritize creating a safe and equitable space for debate. Essentially, just treat each other nicely and with respect.

Email: samuelkligman@gmail.com

LD:

If you spread, make sure I can understand you. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.

Congress:

1) New Arguments-Every piece of legislation is inherently multifaceted with wide-ranging effects. As legislators, it is your duty to your constituents to thoroughly examine every legislation piece. Thus, while I recognize the value and need for an extensive evaluation of certain points of contention during the debate, please do not rehash the same argument. Instead, you should look at new ways to attack an argument and strive to induce an "aha" moment from a (hypothetical) undecided legislator. Moreover, new arguments are also entirely welcome as long as you leave enough time for clash or weave clash into your new argument. I weigh this in an equivalent manner to clash.

TLDR: New arguments are always a good idea, and are even better when used to clash.

2) Clash-Congress is not a speech event, but rather a pure form of debate. In every speech, you should reference other representatives' speeches and deconstruct their arguments. Please devote substantial time to this, and try to fit it into every point of contention.

TLDR: Spend lots of time clashing.

3)Evidence- The more sources, the better. At a minimum, you should have two sources per contention. Moreover, I value reputable and nonpartisan sources the most (Brookings, Urban, .edu, etc....) over slightly biased sources (CATO, Vox, etc...). Basically, just mix it up a bit! Also, use your best judgment on whether a source is outdated or not for I will always prefer newer sources over older ones.

TLDR: Have evidence that is plentiful, diverse, and timely.

4) Questioning- Be active! Never pass on an opportunity to ask a question to the opposing side. That being said, do not repeat a question already brought up or ask a soft question purely for the sake of solidifying your speech. Your questions should be detailed, researched, and thought-provoking. When answering questions, be confident, concise, and answer only what is asked. I will keep a tally of all the questions you ask that I deemed substantial and contributed positively to the round. I will refer to this as a tie-breaker when ranking similar debaters.

TLDR: Do not rehash questions or ask easy questions to solidify your speech. Ask lots of strong questions as much as possible.

5) Structure- Make sure your speech flows from one argument to the next in a clear and fluid manner. Basically, ensure each point does not awkwardly flow into the next. I should always know what point of contention you are on.

6) Introductions- I love smart, eloquent, and concise introductions that match the tone of your overall speech. Your intro should be at most 30 seconds long (at most). In general, I do not like overly humorous introductions as most pieces of legislation have permanent and severe consequences. I love clever introductions that draw upon real-life examples and potential situations that can arise from a piece of legislation with a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. However, a simple introduction with a quote or statistic that is delivered passionately is perfectly fine to me as well Overall, a bad intro can hurt a good speech, but a beautiful intro cannot save a bad speech. I weigh accordingly.

TLDR: Short, clever, and/or passionate intros are the best. Avoid overt humor in general. I weigh intros fairly low.

7) Presentation-To create an equitable space for debate, I do not have too many presentational preferences. I just ask that you speak up, vary your intonation, try not to pace, and have good eye contact. Feel free to physically block or not. Unless your presentation is truly poor and actively detracts from your speech, I do not consider it as much as other factors when ranking and scoring.

TLDR: As long as your presentation does not interfere with your communication, you're good.

8) PO-I will rank a PO in the top 3 if they 1) recognize 12 speeches at least per hour 2) avoid substantial parliamentary errors and 3) keep order.

PF:

•Please weigh throughout the round and not just in summary.

•I flow and will drop arguments not brought up consistently.

•I'm fine with speed, but please do not spread.

•Use crossfire constructively and not as a means to be rude to your opponent.

•I will disregard new arguments brought up in summary and final focus.

•I really like metaphors and figurative language, especially in final focus.

•If one side presents a framework, I will judge the round through the lens of that framework unless properly refuted. If both sides present a framework, I will judge the rounds through the lens of the superior framework.

Hi! I’m Maya, I debated for Princeton High School and I qualified to TOC in LD in 2022 and silver TOC in PF in 2023, but LD was my main event (just did PF for fun senior year)

Pronouns: any

Email: mayaalerman@gmail.com

You can also contact me via facebook

Shortcuts (LD)

1 - phil, t/theory, substantive tricks

2 - ks

3 - LARP

4 - trad

General

Tech > Truth

I’ll evaluate anything (as long as it’s not blatantly problematic)

I don’t have a high threshold for extensions if arguments were conceded, especially for the aff under a time crunch

You should give a clear ballot story and make sure to weigh so rounds aren’t irresolvable

Speed is cool, feel free to go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity but keep in mind that I'm not the greatest at flowing, so share speech docs whenever possible

I default to presumption and permissibility negates (you can definitely convince me otherwise)

If your opponent is a lot less experienced than you, don’t be rude. You don’t have to dumb things down for them since it’s an educational opportunity, but I will tank your speaks if you read dumb tricks or don’t explain things well.

Staking rounds on rule violations/evidence challenges is incredibly cringe. I will have a very VERY high tolerance for these and will more likely drop you unless the abuse was egregious.

Feel free be as aggressive, snarky, and confident as you are comfortable with, especially if you are a minority debater. I know how tiring it is to be dropped for being "too aggressive" (and frankly, being aggressive makes debate more fun). Just stay within reasonable limits (obviously).

Novice/Lay debate (LD)

I’m a flow judge and will evaluate any argument. Be sure to have a clear ballot story and WEIGH under the winning framework. For these debates you can disregard the rest of the paradigm, I'm fully comfortable judging anything.

PF

Take the public OUT of public forum.

You can absolutely run progressive arguments in front of me, but don’t think that because I have an LD background you have to read theory. Do whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll evaluate it fairly, I’ll probably cringe a bit if you try to read a literature base that you’re not familiar with. That said, I will have a lot more fun judging if you read something other than policy!

Im really bad at evidence stuff and will likely not call a card, so if you want evidence comparison you should do it in your speeches and give me judge instruction on why your evidence is better.

I’m big on weighing and honestly don’t have a super high threshold for link chains (I’m kind of an extinction hack lmao but don't neglect links).

Frontline in second rebuttal.

K's/K affs

My favorite K's include include: Deleuze, psychoanalysis, various forms of fem, Weheliye, Baudrillard, Puar, Edelman, and cap. I'm also familiar with (but haven't read): Bataille, pess, Foucault, set col, Agamben, orientalism, anti-blackness. If your K wasn’t listed I’ll still definitely evaluate it, just explain your arguments since I haven't read the literature.

I'm all good with non-T and K tricks. The more creatively you utilize your theory of power warrants the higher your speaks will be. I prefer philosophically justified warrants and in-depth debate about the literature over just inclusion pre-reqs.

Phil

This is my favorite type of debate. I'm very familiar with Kant, Hobbes, Levinas, existentialism, skep, alienation, contractualism, virtue, determinism, nietzsche etc. You can read anything and I'll probably have at least a basic level of understanding of it even if I haven't read it myself.

Totally fine with triggering skep, indexicals, implicit standards, etc. Tricky phil debate is awesome

T/theory

I'm very comfortable evaluating theory, and I'll vote for any shell.

Meta theory, 1ar theory, paragraph theory, and out of round violations are all legit (but you can convince me otherwise)

If there are multiple shells in the round, weighing is super important

Tricks

The less substantial the trick, the lower my threshold is for an adequate response, but I’ll vote on anything if it goes conceded and is extended/implicated.

I actually really like good substantive tricks, but if you’re winning the round off a stupid semantic a priori I’ll probably give you low speaks. Also, make sure to link your trick to a framing mechanism if applicable.

High speaks for funny/creative substantive tricks.

Policy/LARP

This is definitely the style I'm the worst at judging at a progressive level, but I did become more familiar with debating policy from my brief time in PF. Slow down a bit for judge instruction and weigh to help me out.

Also, don’t skimp out on util/ROB justifications, and don’t rely too heavily on extinction outweighs. That was my biggest pet peeve as a debater

my name is anuka and I did debate for a couple years in high school. I did policy my freshman yr of high school and then switched over to ld my sophomore year. I debated a bit my sophomore year but debated like once or twice my junior year and then not at all senior year.

currently I am a freshman in college and am "part of" Columbia's debate team (aka I wanted the free sweatshirt lol)

im not very experienced in tech but will evaluate any arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained. take that as u will and plz dont read anything too crazy. if you have any questions email me

good luck

email chain: anuka.debate@gmail.com

Newark Science Alum - I debated LD 2004-2008, Had tons of fun, learned alot, made it to Nationals in Vegas my Senior Year. I have been judging LD on and off since then. 

I appreciate the traditional debating style and argument construction because I generally believe keeping things really simple and clear is more difficult than constructing a complex argument. Counter-intuitive, I know. With that said I also love new and fresh arguments and debating styles, as long as they make sense and are not complicated for the sake of complication (read: jargon and fluff)

I like when debaters tell me what to do in a round and why to do it. This makes signing the ballot a lot easier. I will sit and evaluate over 50 arguments at the end of the round. I will, but i'd rather you narrow it down by telling me what to focus on. 

 

Everthing below is Copied and pasted from my former coach, Jonathan Alston. We kinda share the same philosophies.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine. 

Do not spread philosophy. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it. 

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round. 

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. 

Pre-Standard Arguments
Every argument has a standard, even if it is pre the agreed upon standard in the round. Explain to me why it is important or makes sense. I like smart, substantive arguments. 

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe". 

Hello my name is Makayla Muchowski. I am a traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and designed to uphold a sound value structure. Spreading is tolerated (barely) but certainly not appreciated or rewarded. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counterarguments will be measurably appreciated.

Hi! I’m Sarah (she/her). I debated LD for Durham for four years.

TLDR: Debate should be safe, sensible, and hopefully entertaining. Everything that you do should make it that way.

I’ll flow, so signpost and extend your arguments throughout. That means explaining and defending each of your arguments in every speech so that I can vote on it. That said, quality over quantity. A well-developed contention or response with a straightforward warrant is always stronger than any number of incomplete arguments. This has come up a few times: please do not make brand new responses in the 2NR or 2AR. I won't consider those in my decision. You can adjust, clarify, or develop what you already said, but you shouldn't be surprising me with an entirely new argument.

If you are actively trying to confuse a less experienced opponent out of the round with technical language, stop. You probably lost me on content and you have definitely lost me on sympathy. I never did progressive debate and I don’t understand it well so I wouldn’t run it if I were you. Only go as fast as you can stay coherent.

I'll try to award speaks based on the clarity of your logic and your cleverness during the round, not fluency. Specifically for novices, I will give you higher speaks if you use all of your time. There is no better way to practice than by speaking, even if you feel like you've covered the entire flow.

This should go without saying, but any discriminatory behavior will get you reported to Tab immediately. Respect your opponent and their pronouns. If there's something wrong that I don't pick up on, please tell me as soon as you can. You may also email me at sarah.muir@duke.edu.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round starts. I’m always up for a conversation before the round starts (I love sports and late night comedy, and talking to me will make this more fun for all of us!). I’ll disclose the result and give feedback unless it's a DSDL novice round.

Springboard:

I'm happy to stay on after the round and give y'all extra advice or additional feedback, directly round-related or about debate more generally. No pressure, but I'm here for you & there's not the time constraint of a weekend tournament, so just ask!

(He/Him)

Hi. Call me Rusem. I did LD debate at Bronx Science for 4 years.

Email: paulr@bxscience.edu

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

For Novice LD:

- I will evaluate framework first. Whatever framework wins will be how I evaluate offense.

- Please have extensions, signpost, and most importantly, weigh comparatively.

- Don't be ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Have fun!

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

For Varsity LD:

Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it has a claim, warrant, impact, and isn't blatantly atrocious like racism good. I'll still vote on spark and death good.

Prefs: Overall, do what you do best and I'll try my best to adjudicate. Just because something is ranked lower should not discourage you from reading it. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this.

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 1

Tricks - 2

LARP - 2/3

K - 3

Defaults: comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy different from the status quo, permissibility negates, DTD, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > IRA, T > Theory, yes 1AR theory, no judge kick.

Phil: I love it. This was the main style of debate I did in high school. I'm familiar with most frameworks (Kant, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Rawls, Plato, Rule Util). Make sure to explain your syllogism well. Don't blip past a million buzzwords. I think having a long, well-developed syllogism is better than spamming a bunch of independent reasons to prefer. Phil v Phil debates tend to be more blippy so please go slower on analytics and give top-level framing issues of the framework debate. I think examples of your/your opponent's philosophy in practice are underutilized.

Theory/T: These debates are interesting. Go slower on the interpretation text and provide a warrant for the violation, especially in topicality debates. Spec is cool. Make sure to have definitions in T debates. You should extend paradigm issues but you do not have to extend the warrants if it goes conceded. I recommend having a bright-lineif you are going for reasonability.

Tricks: These debates can be very funny. I like tricks I have never seen before, phil tricks, and weird skep warrants over dumping a bunch of a prioris and incoherency definitions. I will evaluate every speech so do not read "evaluate the debate after x speech" or "evaluate the theory debate after x speech."

LARP: I find these debates to be the most boring but I like weird counterplans that have a solvency advocate. I'll try my best but you probably do not want me judging a super technical policy debate.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with Cap, Deleuze, and security. Understand your lit base well and explain your theory of power well. Explain why your view of power/morality/the world is true and why I should care about it in the context of this resolution and/or round. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand so avoid using a lot of jargon.
I'll happily vote on a non T aff or a performance aff if it is won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:
- Be nice.
- Don't steal prep. Compiling the doc is prep. Sending is not.
- Send anything prewritten such as blocks/overviews.
- Post-rounding is fine so long as I don't find it to be rude.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask unless tournament rules say otherwise.
- I most likely will have little to no information about the actual topic lit since I haven't kept up with debate.
- I don't flow CX except for writing down the status of advocacies.

2024

My name is Emily, and my pronouns are she/her/hers. I do APDA and BP at Princeton University.

The first thing to note is that I am a lay judge. I did not do LD in high school and have limited knowledge about the current norms.

Email: ep5196@princeton.edu

LARP/phil>Ks>tricks. I am willing to vote on anything you bring into the round as long as you explain why I should vote on it.

Things to note:

1. I judge tabula rasa, but I am generally a reasonable person. If you warrant, impact, and weigh, you are well on your way to winning.

2. Please do not be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I will not tolerate anything that endangers a positive environment.

3. I can understand a reasonable amount of speed and will clear if it becomes an issue, but please speak at a reasonable pace. Quality over quantity! If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot flow them.

4. Signpost as much as you possibly can! It helps me flow your arguments and makes them easier to understand.

5. Explain any theory thoroughly if you plan to run it.

Best of luck, and enjoy your rounds! Feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback requests!

For public forum, I'm interested in the weighing of the quality of sources, and ensuring that the points are clear when said out loud. In terms of sources, quality is determined in terms of statistical analysis. I usually prefer statistics and facts and figures on cause and effect of the policies, instead of hypothetical editorials, even if well thought out. I am open to comparing similar historical events as a source to back up an argument. Crossfire is also very important, as it guarantees the overall confidence of the team and how they work cohesively in their own understanding of the material. I am not a fan of arguing theory; I prefer to stick with the traditional spirit of public forum. If theory is hypothetically a part of both sides' arguments, I will prefer the theories that back up traditional PF.

For lincoln douglas, this also applies. I usually am not a fan of spreading, but can roll with it if need be. Also, I am open to weighing Value vs Value Criterion and how it affects significance.

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

IF YOU ARE READING THIS, THAT MEANS I AM (PROBABLY) YOUR JUDGE. YIPEE!!

*:・ﾟ ₍ᐢ•ﻌ•ᐢ₎*:・ﾟ

HE/SHE/HIM/HER

D.K.SEEP@GMAIL.COM

BACKGROUND: Debated for four years for Horizon High School in Arizona, graduated 2019 and now I judge for Collegiate Academy in New York. I mostly ran performance/queer rage Ks in high school, if that matters to anybody reading.

CRASH COURSE: The floor is truly yours, run whatever you like I want to hear it!! Please explain your complicated lit, I really hate having to read a bunch of fine print in order to judge the round.Oh my gosh please please please use speechdrop.net I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE EMAIL CHAINS THEY TAKE SO STINKIN' LONG. STOP. I am fine with spreading, but please pause and emphasize important bits of your speeches. Card tags/authors, impacts, links, anything that you think NEEDS to be on my flow, take .5 seconds to pause and emphasize. Even raising your voice helps if you dont have the time to pause, it really helps me out on my flow. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, IMPACT ANALYSIS IS KEEEEYYY to winning my ballot! Also please extend, otherwise I will LITERALLY drop anything you did not extend by the end of the round.

PF: I never really was a PF person, so it's hard to say what I like to see in a PF debate. My big thing is impact analysis, I don't really care for "my evidence is better than YOUR evidence" debates. I feel like a lot of PF debates focus too much on things that don't really affect /my/ ballot (how recent your evidence is, statistics, etc.) which I personally don't like, but I also know thats just part of the event.

FRAMEWORK: I love me some good framework debate. If you're running traditional I think you should REALLY focus in on framework.Please, add some extra meat to your framework beyond "value: [BLANK], criterion: [blank],"I want to know why you chose your framework and how it fits into the round before you even get into contentions.

LINKS: To me, anything is a link. And Imean anything.You tell me it links, and I'll believe you.That is not the same for delinking, please tell me why a link is BS and I will believe you.Too many debaters have simply tried to tell me "this doesn't link, drop the argument," without telling mewhyit doesn't link.

IMPACTS: You need to really hammer in why your impacts win the round!! EVEN WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS, TELL MEWHY IT MATTERS.YOU CANNOT JUST GIVE ME EXTINCTION IMPACTS AND EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU WITHOUT DOING THE PROPER WEIGHING!! Magnitude, scope, whatever,weigh. all. of. the. impacts. in. round.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS: I'm lukewarm on plans, I think if you're gonna run a plan it should be very fleshed out otherwise why not just run a trad aff lol? Counterplans are cool too, but please just let me know when you ARE running a counterplan. Obviously plans and counterplans can be run as trad, but it's just to help me flow and keep track of what is being said, thank you!

KRITIKS: My faaaavooritteeeeee!!! I love em all!However, I have not competed in almost 5 years(ohgeezthatscrazyimgettingold)and I am NOT college edumacated. Please explain your lit!Add some extra analytics after cards, something, anything like that. I have a pretty good understanding of a lot of phil, but I just need my hand held a little bit.Also if your opponent clearly is confused, PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THEM MORE BY NOT EXPLAINING THINGS.That is really, really mean and I do not like it ONE BIT.This is why I encourage flex prep, let your opponent ask clarification questions and answer themHONESTLY.Oh and also please LABEL each section of the K!! Makes it a lot easier for me as a judge.

THEORY: Personally, I am not super big on theory. I like that debate doesn't have any rules, why argue about made up rules? Either way, I encourage theory, but please make the violation very very clear to me. AND PLEASE MAKE IT A WELL FLESHED OUT THEORY SHELL. IF I HAVE TO MAKE AN ENTIRE NEW FLOW FOR THEORY JUST FOR YOU TO SPEND 15 SECONDS ON IT I WILL BE SO MADD!!! Basically, if you are trying to win my ballot, do not think that a theory shell will do it.

TOPICALITY: I personally don't see why ANYBODY has to be topical in LD, so please please give me some clear impacts. Again, I'm willing to listen to it, but you really need some good impacts for me to vote on it.

DISCLOSURE: Same for above, I NEED a valid violation for disclosure especially. I think a lot of disclosure theory is very frivolous, so please flesh out your shell if you're going to run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCE: I love performance in debate. I come from a theatre background, so if you've always wanted to run performance and you've never done it before, I am the perfect judge to do it front of.Please do not drop your performance after your first speech because I will be so sad):

SPEAKER POINTS: Much to tabroom's dismay, I am not a fan of speaker points. It is my least favorite part of judging I hate having to give a number value to your speaking ability I think it is kind of dumb and doesn't make any sense in a debate setting. I'll almost always give pretty high speaks, unless you're like crazy offensive or something.

Well, that is basically everything I can think of. I encourage all debaters to have fun, debate is a really stressful activity and you all need to remember to prioritize yourselves and your own mental wellbeing. Please feel free to email me with ANY questions that you have before AND after the round! I am always happy to answer any questions and provide extra feedback as needed.

If you are still reading, pet this cat!

＿＿
　　　　　✿＞　　フ
　　　　　| 　_　 _ l
　 　　　／` ミ＿xノ
　　 　 /　　　 　 |
　　　 /　 ヽ　　 ﾉ
　 　 │　　|　|　|
　／￣|　　 |　|　|
　| (￣ヽ＿_ヽ_)__)
　＼二つ

Hello, I am a parent judge. I am a traditional judge that prefers contentions are developed through logical augments supported by evidence within a clear framework. What I like the most in a round is the participant's ability to warrant, impact and weigh, and provide effective challenge to their opponent’s logic/arguments. Please no spreading with me. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other form of discrimination will not be tolerated. Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

Senior LD debater at Lexington High School

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

Tech over truth, here's a quick pref:

1. Theory

2. K

3. Phil

4. Larp

5. Tricks

I’m open to evaluating any arguments as long as they have a warrant, including arguments that change the order I should evaluate the debate.

Theory: I’ve debated a lot of theory and enjoy judging theory debates. I don’t default to any paradigm issues/voters so make sure to warrant relevant paradigm issues. I will evaluate frivolous theory and don’t mind judging it. I consider theory as the highest layer but I’m more than open to arguments that say otherwise (k first, form v content etc.).

K: I’m best at evaluating Dysfluency, Psychoanalysis, Pess, Semiocap, and anything similar. I’m open to any K’s or K affs as long as they are clearly explained. If you’re missing parts of your thesis or theory of power I will be less inclined to vote off of it, especially if it's just a mix of buzzwords.

Phill: Needs to be explained and TJF’s are fine. I’m good with Kant, Hegel, Virtue ethics, and Util.

Larp: Larps fine just make sure to weigh between impacts and under framework. Make method cards implications clear

Tricks: I’m not good at evaluating tricks debates but if it's clear I will do my best to evaluate it.

Novices/Trad: Feel free to debate however you like. Remember that framing is the highest level. Make sure you weigh all your arguments under your own framework and don’t forget to attack your opponent's framing. Using CX effectively will increase your speaks and will likely help you win the round. Judges aren’t allowed to evaluate CX so make sure you make CX-dependent arguments are brough up in your speech. Also, time yourselves.

Most importantly have fun!

I am a parent judge who prefers truth > tech.

What impresses me the most in a round is the participant's ability to identify gaps in their opponents logic and provide counter-arguments or compare your arguments with theirs.

Hi,

I am Veena Yendapalli, a computer engineer working in IT field for several years. I am a parent judge with experience in judging debates including Princeton LD and several other tournaments .

Email : vyendapalli@gmail.com

Good Luck to all the debaters!!