Put these emails on the email chain:

lasablackflag@gmail.com

lasadebatedocs@gmail.com

(She/Her)

Sixth-year of policy debate at LASA High School.

Please name the email chain something logical, preferably the format “Tournament name – Round – Aff team v Neg team”. Don’t name it something like “round 1” or “email chain”.

For online debate, I would prefer if everyone keeps their camera on, and I’ll do the same.

TLDR

I view debate as a game, which means I’m willing to vote on any arguments as long as they aren’t racist/homophobic/sexist etc. I will try and be as unbiased as possible. This is not to say that you can't win debate is something other than a game in front of me, but that I will evaluate the debate based on who did the better debating. (The fact that proving debate is a place for activism or education is something that must be "won" demonstrates what I'm talking about).

Tech over truth. Do what you do best/would like to do rather than trying to adapt to what you think I may enjoy.

I will work very hard to render the best possible decision and minimize intervention because I know that debaters work very hard.

If I don't understand an argument, I am unlikely to vote for it.

I'll read evidence if I think it might be important but will slightly prefer the debater's analysis over evidence quality. Judge instruction about whether I should weigh evidence or debating more or less will easily change how I evaluate this.

Please automatically send a card doc after the debate with cards that I should look at because they would be relevant to my decision.

Topicality

The quality of definitions read in many debates is laughably bad. Interpretations should define the word you think the aff violates. If your "definition" doesn't actually define the word and is just a contextual use, that's suboptimal. If the neg hasn't read a real definition, I don't know why the aff has to read one.

Reasonability is about whether the aff’s counter-interp is reasonable, not if the aff is reasonable.

I default to competing interps because it has a clear brightline for determining who won (offense/defense). Reasonability is confusing because I am unsure what the threshold is for something to be considered "reasonable." To make reasonability impactful in how I evaluate the debate, you should include judge instruction about what it means to be a "reasonable" interpretation.

Counterplans

I won't judge kick unless you tell me too. If you want me to judge kick, then you should say so in the block AND the 2NR. If it wasn't in the block then saying I should judge kick will be regarded as a 2NR argument. Similarly, if the aff team would not like me to judge kick it should be answered in the 1AR AND 2AR. If you don't do this I won't judge kick it for you.

In condo debates I usually think most of the 2AR is to new.

I'll assume dispo means you can kick the counterplan if they make any perms, competition arguments, or theory arguments unless you define it some other way.

Disadvantages

Quality matters more than quantity of evidence.

If you don't read a complete disad in the 1NC (Uniqueness, link, internal link impact) then the aff gets to make new 1AR answers when you do. If you never read all 4 parts of the DA, and the aff points it out then you haven't made a complete argument, I don't see why you should win. Stop being lazy because you want to read 8-off 1NCs and just do drills.

Kritiks v Plan Aff

Framework is the most important thing usually because it determines the win conditions for both teams and what sources they can access offense from.

Sometimes either side will try to forward a middle-of-the-road-type interp, something along the lines of "the aff gets the plan and the neg gets links to reps." This is confusing to me because I'm not sure how to weigh the aff's impacts vs impacts about the 1ACs reps/epistemology being bad. If this is the interp you should have judge instruction about how to compare impacts that exist on different conceptual levels or scales.

I don't care for overviews. It seems like almost no one does.

Framework

For the Neg:

Is fairness an impact? It seems self-evident that fairness is desirable at least at some level, but:

1. This "self-evidentness" makes it challenging for teams to articulate fairness as an impact because it's an abstract ethical principle that people generally feel is good, but may struggle to rationalize why. You can overcome this challenge and win that fairness is a terminal impact, but you're gonna have to do better than "you would never give a marathon runner a headstart!!"

2. It's hard to weigh something as abstract as fairness against aff impacts that are more concrete. If given a 100% risk of a fairness impact vs a 100% risk of whatever racism/inaccessibility/psychological violence impact the aff has, of course, the latter will outweigh. This means you need to win robust defense to the affs stuff. However, fairness is strategic because it can allow you to more easily win defense to their impacts that doesn't contradict your offense by saying debate is a mere game that doesn't have any influence on how we think.

You may be better off going for some sort of clash/advocacy skills/dogma impact because they can give you inroads to access the aff's subject formation offense.

I don't think you necessarily have to answer case in the 2NR to win. T is a procedural so it comes before case. However, sometimes winning case defense is an elegant way to resolve aff offense on T because their arguments will rely on winning some case arguments.

If you're aff:

You either have the choice of impact turning or going for a CI+more limited offense. Both routes have their downsides. The CI strategy can be risky because your offense is more likely to be captured by a TVA or switch side debate. Impact turning and not going for a counter interp means you have no way to access neg offense, but will probably avoid being solved by a TVA. Trying to split the middle between these two strategies means your offense probably won't make any sense.

If you are going for a counter interp + defense it would help you a lot to have definitions supported by evidence for the counter-interp. It's not a necessity but it's hard to win you solve predictability absent definitions.

If both sides debated framework perfectly, I would certainly vote neg. However, in reality aff teams tend to be better because they're in more of these debates and the neg doesn't identify what matters or understand how to answer the aff's offense particularly well.

For both sides, I'm unpersuaded by arguments that use analogies between debate and other things to hide that there's no impact to the argument. It's better if you speak literally and save the metaphors for poetry.

K v K

Impact calculus is very important. It's confusing if both teams are making arguments that operate at different conceptual levels (ex - in round debate practices vs global capitalism) and don't explain how to compare things at different scales.

Random

Whether an argument is new in the 2AR is not just a question of “did the 1AR say it?” but rather “did my understanding of it change from the 1AR to the 2AR?”

You cannot "insert rehighlighting." If you don't say it I didn't flow it. If your card is you inserting a chart, explain to me what the chart is saying or read some words.

I think post-rounding is good and I encourage asking questions if you don't like the decision.

UT '26

My email is t@bawa.us

TL;DR

Update November 2023: I have not been involved with debate for upwards of a year now. I won't be familiar with topic lit, so thoroughly explain and assume that I don't know your acronyms/abbreviations. Also please slow down for online debate. I'm probably an 8/10 for speed at this point, but like 6.5/10 when it's over Zoom.

I'll evaluate any argument. Speed is fine just make sure to be clear and slow down on tags, advocacies, plan texts, etc. Please include me on the email chain.

Substantively, I'm pretty much tab. Read anything but make sure to warrant your arguments thoroughly. Tech>Truth and I generally tend to think of debate as a game (unless you tell me otherwise). Also, err on the side of overexplaining because I'm likely not familiar with the topic literature.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round. Debate is a difficult activity and I'd love to help for future rounds.

PREFS SHORTCUT

1- Policy/Topicality/Theory

2- Ks/Phil

3- Tricks

Speed

Slow down on tags/advocacies/plan texts. Don't mumble, I'll yell clear twice before stopping my flow.

Policy

Most comfortable with this literature. Make sure to weigh and make strong, substantive arguments

For CPs and PICs make sure to explicitly warrant the net benefits. Will judge kick CP if told to do so.

Impact calc makes a disad debate interesting - do it.

Kritiks

I read some Ks in high school (capitalism, settler colonialism, Baudrillard, some more). I understand most K literature but please err on the side of overexplaining - I've been out of the activity for some time so the jargon isn't really fresh to me. I'm big on framework so emphasize why your model for the round should win.

Generate offense!

I'm okay with non-T affs but am very receptive to topicality against them. If you're reading one prove why not being topical is beneficial and propose an alternative mechanism to weigh the round.

Phil

For context, I read mostly util and some Kant in high school. However, I'm familiar with most common frameworks.

I love a solid AC/NC debate but make sure to have a substantive clash on the framework level. It's hard to evaluate these rounds unless I'm given reasons to prefer a framework over another. Again, err on overexplaining and slow down on lengthy analytical arguments.

Trad

Go for it. Weigh offense and be willing to collapse under your opponent's framework. I've seen too many debates where people spend the whole round arguing about a weighing mechanism without actually having offense under it. Don't do that.

Topicality/Theory

These are good debates to be had. Prove the abuse and weigh your impacts and you should be fine.

I generally believe that disclosure is a good practice and am pretty receptive to disclosure theory, especially if the aff specifies a small part of the literature.

Utilize combo shells - they can be extremely helpful and can create better, more contextualized debates.

Friv theory is fine but don't expect high speaks if you plan on collapsing on it.

Please use definitions in the T debate.

Tricks

Err on the side of overexplanation. Not that comfortable with tricks

Case

I love case. If you successfully collapse on a case turn, expect high speaks. People don't utilize case arguments enough.

Miscellaneous:

Prep ends when you're done preparing the doc, but if you take too long to send it I'll start running it again.

If there's a clear skill discrepancy please be reasonable - I'll boost your speaks.

Time yourself

I'm okay with flex prep/open CX as long as your opponent is.

Good luck and have fun!

Westwood CC 

joonyoungchoo@gmail.com 

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts -- Stolen from Het Desai 

-- The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words that you hope I repeat back to you at the beginning of my decision. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD.

-- I will rarely instantly decide the debate on a single dropped argument alone and will only consider that dropped argument in the broader scheme of what occurred. I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:

A. List the­ arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B. Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will cross these arguments off my flow.

C. Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only include substantive argumentation, but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the 2AR.

D. Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.

-- Tech > truth in most instances. Unless I’m offered an alternative framework to judge debates, I will default to assuming that dropped arguments are true arguments. That being said, technical debating does not warrant an auto-win and the assumption that certain arguments are auto round winners when dropped leads to disastrous decisions. For instance, judges seem to automatically assume that “realism good” is an impact turn to every IR critical argument come 2020. While it would certainly be nice if the negative explained which portions of realism they agree/disagree with (e.g. rational actor model, the model of the nation state, etc.), it is not the burden of the 2NR to answer “realism good” in this hypothetical situation if the 1AC, 2AC, and 1AR choose not to explain why winning realism is good/true implicates the negative’s arguments.

-- Numbering, labeling, and compartmentalization are very important for me. Whenever possible, each argument in the 2AC should be numbered / labeled and those numbers / labels should be referenced for the rest of the debate. The 2NC and the 2NR’s responses to affirmative arguments should always be numbered.

-- Sound like you want to be here.

-- Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will be ready to defend my decision. Thus, “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

Sreyas Rajgopal: "actual arguments > ad homs" I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure etc. or render a decision about the ethicality of any person I am judging. I don’t know you and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

Framework

1. I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides. “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen. I went for mainly procedural-based impacts centered around clash and argumentative refinement when I was negative. This strategy requires greater defense to the aff’s impact turns, but makes it less difficult for you to indict the aff counter-interp.

2. Switch side debate is massively underutilized in HS debate. Most 2NRs assert TVA and SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best.

3. “TVA: who cares. If the 1AC says "reduce FMS to Saudi - we must discuss the Yemen War now!" on the water topic, it is not the negative's burden to describe how the aff team could have made their 1AC topical. TVA could be useful as defense (especially if conceded) but tends to factor little in my decisions” – Shree Awsare.

4. Most Framework approaches can be filtered into one of two categories:

A) Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the ability to impact turn both the content of debates that would occur under the negative’s interpretation AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will, however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of framework is violent.

5. Neg teams should extend presumption and contest aff solvency throughout the debate. This will make it much more difficult for the aff to shift to more persuasive impact turns that are likely not resolved by their counter-interpretation/the ballot.

6. The 2AR should center 1-2 pieces of central offense through which to explain their strategy. “Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere” – Joshua Michael.

7. Fairness is an "impact" vs. "internal link". Who cares?! This is a distinction without a difference. We've mutually agreed how this works in all other contexts, so why is this any different? A "nuclear war" is an impact until the other team reads nuclear war good. No one would ever continue to argue "nuclear war" is their impact. They would refer to the negative effects of that nuclear war (mass death) as their impact. Fairness is no different, so it should be debated as such.

Kritiks v Plan

1. I’m comfortable in these debates as well. I have at least a decent grasp on most of the common Ks in debate and have likely went for them a number of times.

2. How you frame your arguments will likely have a significant impact on my evaluation of them. “All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so” – Anirudh Prabhu. Not enough preparation is spent on how you will package your arguments, cross-examination, and/or general round vision.

3. Framework means a lot more to me than it does to some judges. A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR. It will likely be the first argument I evaluate, unless the affirmative has decided not to prioritize it.

“How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense” – Anirudh Prabhu. Negative defense to the aff’s standards are usually insufficient and should be prioritized more, while aff teams should borrow more from their negative framework arsenal against planless affirmatives and explain why a model of debate where the affirmative gets to weigh the plan is most reflective of the resolution and why debate over that predictable stasis point is the best model.

4. High link specificity will be rewarded. Although I will still evaluate the debate as presented, demonstrating you’ve thought about how your K interacts with the affirmative will be rewarded in speaker points and in the decision. Unlike many other judges, I will certainly be willing to vote on turns case arguments when your link arguments are well-explained in the context of the affirmative.

5. The permutation is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy because of debate’s reliance on offense/defense evaluation. Winning on the permutation often requires winning independent of the permutation as well. Instead, Affirmatives should prioritize developing their aff as offense more.

6. Extinction outweighs is a devastating argument against most neg Ks. I have a difficult time understanding neg responses as they are reliant on Framework and/or do not contest the specific scenario for extinction in the 1AC. “If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs” – DKP.

Kritiks/Other Strategies v No Plan

If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in.

1. It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation.

2. I am not persuaded by “no perms in method debates”. Although permutations tend to get out of control in these debates, I do not believe entirely abandoning competition is the solution. The negative needs links that disprove the aff. However, the threshold for a no link argument if one is forwarded by the affirmative will be higher. The neg is best served explicitly establishing a higher threshold which I will be receptive to.

3. Go for presumption. Press the aff on its ability to solve. Vague assertions about your aff will not be rewarded with either the ballot or speaker points and I will not be lenient to new aff extrapolation.

4. Go for Topic DAs and Impact Turns if the affirmative links. Or better yet, link them to it. Usually, aff responses are woefully insufficient.

5. This might sound terrible for the aff, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory.

Topicality

1. “A decent amount of evidence with intent to define considerably improves your offense.

2. Caselists on both sides help.

3. I tend to care most about predictability” – Ruby Klein.

4. “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu.

5. In most circumstances, affs should utilize reasonability, functional limits, and arbitrariness as their 2AR strategy.

Counterplans

1. Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way.

2. I will default to judge-kick unless told otherwise. Generally, I believe no judge-kick arguments should start in the 1AR at least if you want to win them.

3. I will default to the model that counterplans must compete functionally and textually, but I am willing to hear alternative models for competition.

4. Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus.

5. Presumption goes to least change.

Disads

1. “Turns the case” is important in some debates, but not others. It’s important to recognize when to prioritize it. The argument that war causes structural violence is intuitive and should not require too much explanation aside from explaining how it implicates framing. Turns case arguments at higher levels of the DA are more persuasive when applied to the aff’s internal links.

2. I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor.

3. Smart analytic arguments are significantly under-utilized. Most politics scenarios, for example, can be logically disproven by a series of analytic arguments. But, the better the other team’s evidence is the more you’ll need of your own.

Case

1. Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

2. I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

3. Everything from the DA section apply just as much here.

Theory

1. I’m likely better for theory arguments than most because I evaluate them similarly to every other argument. But, if left to my own devices, I’m neg leaning on most questions.

2. “A creative perm debate is likely better and less life-denying, but I understand that theory is necessary to beat process CPs that steal the aff and cheat" - Ruby Klein.

3. I'm far better than the average judge for aff-specific PIKs. I think they're heavily underutilized and a personal favorite of mine. Defeating a strong aff theory argument is still difficult given significant aff pushback especially if the PIK was not explicitly one in the 1NC. However, I find these strategies are often most true to nuanced disagreements in the literature, so there is a strong pedagogical benefit to pursuing them.

lasa 24

email: dollingerjack21@gmail.com

- i am fine with any arguments.

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

- don't be mean.

have fun!

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit in Boston, MA.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate and public speaking events, although I have of course judged many a round of LD or PF.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

Style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Hi! My name is Sarah (she/her)

I debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School (2018-2022), qualifying to TFA state junior and senior year.

As a debater, I mainly read Policy styled arguments and T/theory. I'm not the best with K and phil but if you contextualize it and explain it well then I will vote on it. I am not very good at understanding/catching tricks so run at your own risk.

This is short but feel free to ask questions before round! I want to help make debate as accessible and educational as possible!

I will vote down aff teams that do not read 1AC’s that implicitly answer everything that the negative will read. Line by line demonstrates a failure in the aff’s infinite prep time and I will presume that it is a desperate last minute spin against a truthful negative argument, especially because the 1AC did not contain an answer.

Westwood BK '25

He/Him/His

Please put me on the chain and feel free to send any questions here: nknaithruvkashyap@gmail.com.

This is a novice paradigm first and foremost.

TL:

Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my preferences could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks. Being nice in round, evidence quality, and efficient line-by-line are the most important things to me / will be rewarded the most with speaks.

Specifics:

[1] Tech > Truth unless provided with an alternative FWK. That being said, I will not evaluate arguments such as death good, racism good, suicide good, I will default to dropping the team. Other than that, the 'truthiness' of an argument does not matter to me.

[2] Clarity > Speed, 'slow and smart beats fast and stupid' I think sums this up the best. If I cannot understand what you are saying because you are mumbling, do not expect me to go through the mental gymnastics required to flow it. If I cannot understand you, I will audibly say 'clear' once, and then stop flowing.

[3] Line-by-line is king, a 4 minute overview will not impress me. I want an obvious, responsive line-by-line in every speech succeeding the 1NC. Also, try not to have the debate boiling down to reading varsity blocks that barely apply. Show off your own skills, not your varsity members'.

[4] Don't steal prep. If I catch your 'prep thievery', I will cap your speaks at 28.

[5] Don't be an a-hole. Debate is a competitive activity, I get that, but there is a line between being assertive or passionate, and being blatantly rude.

[6] I'd prefer not to get bogged down in extensive theory debates, Not to say I'm not comfortable in them, just that I find the substantive side of debate to be more impressive, more educational, and quite frankly, more fun to judge. That being said, if a theory argument is made, I will do my best to follow along and evaluate the arguments presented.

[7] BS arguments are funny but only to an extent. If you run procedurals like O-spec, the Shrek K, the Turing test etc, you will not get voted down nor will you get your speaks docked. However, if you have a legitimate path to the ballot, and you decide to collapse on some BS argument, I will probably be disappointed and will dock your speaks. That being said, if you want to run a dumb argument in the 1NC, go for it!

[8] You should start your 2NR/2AR by writing my ballot for me. You should be starting these speeches by writing what you hope my RFD will say after the round. Holding my hand every step of the way will help me better understand the debate, and hopefully help you get the decision that you want.

[9] Please name your email chains as follows: 

TOURNAMENT NAME -- Round # -- School A [Aff] vs School B [Neg]

TOC -- Finals -- Westwood BK [Aff] vs Lovejoy PW [Neg]

[10] If you have any questions about the RFD, please post-round me. I have massive respect for anyone who takes the time to ask questions about their debates, as it shows that you're serious about debate and want to improve.

Misc:

[1] Ks: I doubt I'll have to judge a K debate in the novice division, but if so you should know that I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debates far more than FWK debates. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. I am more likely to vote for the K if it gives a detailed explanation of exactly how the links turn the case.

[2] CPs: I lean neg pretty heavily on most theory arguments here, but could go either way on process cps. I will not judge kick unless explicitly told so.

[3] DAs: Generic DAs are underutilized, so definitely go for those in front of me.

[4] T: I tend to lean aff here, but in general the team that more specifically describes what their vision of the topic is will win these debates 90% of the time.

[5] Speaks: I’ll adjust the speaker point scale on a per-tournament basis and attempt to remain consistent throughout the tournament.

29.6+ – top speaker.

29.0-29.5 – top 5-10 speaker.

28.4-28.9 – top 20 speaker.

27.8-28.3 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.2-27.7 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

26.6-27.1 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

26.0-26.5 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

+0.1 speaks for funny WW debater jokes.

+0.2 speaks for sending me your teams' wiki.

+0.3 speaks for taking 0 prep.

~Inspired by Het Desai and Aden Barton~

(Parts shamelessly stolen from Joon, Yao Yao, Azja, and hundreds more I've learned and pulled from indirectly "Nothing is original")

James! Not judge :/

Westwood 23'

Northwestern 27'

jlidebate1@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts:

Policy Oriented for 2 Years, K Oriented for 2 Years (Do what you want!)

Hold my hand! The top of the 2NR/AR should be verbatim what my RFD is.

Tech > Truth - That said: truthful arguments will naturally have a lower bar

Organization is key - Both beneficial for me and you. Label, compartmentalize, number, whatever you have to do

Please don't clip - happens more often than it should.It won't lose you the round, but shitty speaks will be inevitable. Also, please mark your own cards. I'm not here to be a referee, only to decide who wins.

Have fun!

<3 music! Play good music only >:(

Don't be mean

Argument Specifics:

Framework

- Feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. Having ran a K-Aff for 2 years, I also went for FW almost every debate. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides.

- “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen.

- TVAs should make sense (the more attached to the debate meta is, the better). Please impact out TVAs.

- SSD should also be impacted out. Please connect SSD with the rest of the arguments presented.

K - Affs

Top Level

- "Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base." - Azja

- Please explain your argument CLEARLY by the 2AR. There's no need to explain in the same rhetoric the original literature is written in. Keep it simple.

- Explain what I'm supposed to do by the end of the round. Ballot? Role? Debate? All should be abundantly clear by the end.

Strategy

- "[The impact turn] is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable." - Joon

- You know exactly what the neg is going to go for. Pre-empt that starting from the 1AC.

- I feel like I've seen (and been guilty of) too many Aff teams just having totally incoherent strategies. Explain how I weigh the impact turn along with the CP/CM.

K v K

- Fine for these.

- Most K v K debates just have no argument interaction. Don't make debate boring and harder for me to evaluate.

- Please. I beg. I think this could be sooooooooo interesting.

- "If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in." - Joon

- "It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation." - Joon

K v Plan

- As a 2N, bread and butter :)))

- I've gone for a majority of the common ones or at least comfortable in the literature base.

- I love stories, you love stories, everyone loves stories! K debate is about storytelling. Frame the K, think about the round holistically, strategize cross-x, and package your arguments well.

- Evaluate how much framework matters to your K. Cap K? Maybe less so. Techno? Maybe more so. However, if framework is essential to the neg strat: "A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR." - Joon

- Although high link specificity will be rewarded and are SUPER interesting and amazing debates, I probably care about this a lot less than most other judges. Run your generic state links >:), just be ready to defend it.

- I've always been a big fan of reps work. Pull quotes, make the aff nervous :))


Topicality

- I personally don't think that the evidence or the quality of the evidence is that important. As long as you have an intent to define and it's about the word or phrase that you are trying to define, then it's probably fine. That said, make sure you're ready to defend a terrible interp.

- Go for whatever impact you want. I really don't care. Although I'll evaluate whatever you decide to go for, I do think that it is important that you know I almost exclusively went for debateabilty over anything else.

Pointers

- Limits/Ground: I think that this is a pretty convincing argument as long as you have a few key aspects in the block: a caselist, version of the topic, and a clear explanation of why their interp is bad for limits. Also win the overlimiting/underlimiting arg.

- Precision: If you go for precision in the 2NR, please make sure that your evidence is thoroughly explained. Also, your evidence in this context is actually important. If you're actually going for a LEGALLY PRECISE or PRECISE argument, your 1NC evidence has to be good.

Counterplans

- Good with these

- Tend to get boring. Please make it interesting :) (no strategic reason, just makes me happy)

- Specificity (including PICs) make everything so much more interesting and fun. "Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way." - Joon

- Default judge-kick

- Don't have huge biases toward functional/textual competition. If this crucial, can be convinced in any direction.

- "Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus." - Joon

Disads

- "I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor." - Joon

- I like turns case but I feel like these debates always get muddled by the end of the debate. Although war causes structural violence is intuitive, please make it clear to me.

- Use analytics! Underutilized for sureeeeee.

"Case

- Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

- I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

- Everything from the DA section apply just as much here." - Joon

Debater at LASA

For novices:

Do impact calculus, line by line, write my ballot for me. Explain the implication to winning your arguments, explain why evidence comparison matters.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge but really I do not care where the debate goes so long as we keep it professional.

The aff should provide as much if not all of the stock issues as they can and the neg's job is to counter. Of course we can bring up arguments such as perms, cp's, K's, etc. Just make sure they're solid and useful, dont get caught up trying to sound smart if you cannot argue your point.

KEEP SPREADING TO A MINIMUM - meaning dont speak to fast if you cannot speak clearly. If I cannot flow it, I will not count it as an argument.

Feel free to ask any further questions regarding my paradigms if you need to!

email for chain: hvela@nyos.org

3rd year debater and Senior at LASA - he/him

I debated my first 2 years as a 2A/1N, and am debating my third as a 2N/1A.

Ask me for my email.

I'm relatively new to judging. Do what you do best. Impact calc. Judge instruction. If you have any questions, ask or email me!

Enjoy yourself! Treat everyone in the round well.

In novice rounds, I will not vote on dropped theory if the other team doesn't know what the theory violation is. You are all here to learn. If they drop condo, please don't go for it; you will both learn more if there's some clash. I will reject the argument not the team.

Do not do any -isms.

In most other instances, tech > truth.

I will flow cross but it will not factor into my decision unless you bring it up in a speech.

I will only intervene if I have to; if you don't want me to, tell me how to judge.

I will probably pick the most simple path to the ballot.

If you think I made the wrong decision, tell me; I'll try to explain myself the best I can.