I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

Hi, I am a parent judge, though I have judged various tournaments in the past. I will consider your arguments comprehensively, I just ask that you have clear judge instruction. I will vote objectively based on the debate itself, and not my personal biases.

Please add me to the email chain: huangherbert@gmail.com

1. Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't spread. This will help me a lot when flowing and evaluating the round. I give speaker points based on clarity.

2. I will evaluate the round on who persuades me that their side of the resolution is preferable, so try your best to give strong and compelling arguments. Debate is ultimately a game of persuasion, which will will you my ballot.

3. Debate is for learning and gaining education, so please be respectful to me and each other.

Good luck in the round!!

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

i did ld for two years at westlake high school

she/her pronouns; abide by your opponent's pronouns

add me to the email chain: shampurnam@gmail.com

i'm more of a flow judge and i don't like doing work so i prob won't evaluate an argument unless it's clearly extended

probably most familiar with larp and theory debate but any args are fine as long as you flush them out properly (i hate phil debates tho and am really bad at evaluating them)

layer ur args and warrant why you're winning in the top layer. give me a big picture analysis at the end and explain to me why you're winning; essentially write my ballot for me

fine w/ speed but if i say clear twice and u don't slow down or speak clearly then i will stop flowing; im usually pretty generous with speaks but i have a really low threshold for debaters being rude and/or aggressive to me or their opponent and i WILL give u low speaks if you say anything problematic

please give trigger warnings; also i don't do well with any extremely graphic depictions of rape and sexual violence

larp:

- DAs: pretty much fine with anything as long as you have a proper link story and clear impact calculus

- plans/cps/pics: pls do comparative worlds weighing; i think these are strategic and mainly what i ran in hs so i'm fine with really anything

Ks:

- fine with anything as long as they are well warranted; explain why voting for the k actually matters

- PIKs: open to PIKs good/bad debate, i don't have a default on this

- pls do work with the alt and explain the methodology; i have a low threshold when alt isn't warranted

- k affs are cool just explain to me why it's relevant to vote aff and why your topic or method is better

performance:

- i think performances are really cool and meaningful in the debate space; just explain why i should endorse the performance and also pls have good warrants

theory:

- really low threshold for friv theory

- don't spread your interps and have a strong warrant on your abuse story

t/framework:

- i think t debate is valid but i definitely will buy an abuse story off the neg if it is warranted

- pls pls pls explain why your fw matters more and what my role is as the judge; i think framework debates get really messy and i don't like doing work so please weigh

phil:

- sorry i don't like phil debate and i'm pretty bad at evaluating these types of rounds

- if you're reading dense phil please slow down and explain to me the argument like im 5 lol

tricks:

- i don't like them and idk how to evaluate them

good luck everyone! i know debate can be a toxic and negative space sometimes so if you ever need to leave the round please just let me know; mental health comes first

Hey! My name is Abhived and I am a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign!

I am very very expressive. I frown, stick my eyebrow up, and do other rlly obvious things when I don't like an argument. Please do not go for said argument. I will note vote on the silence pic or any other argument that was not read.

No Google Docs! Download the Doc and send it in the chain or file share.

Please slow down!I have not thought about this activity since mid-2022. This means you should go half your speed and do a lot more judge instructions if you want to win.

The less time you take in your speech to win the higher speaks you will get. If you win the debate with more than half of the time left in your speech you will get a W30 in front of me, regardless of who your opponent is.

If you are debating against T/Theory in the 2A extend case. Bare minimum.

My email is apulapaka6@gmail.com

I am a good judge if:

1. You are good at the K
2. You enjoy fun tricks + friv theory debates
3. You are really good at explaining your stock Phil position
4. RVIs!
5. 2N on Framework
6. Benatar
7. You wrap the round up cleanly and quickly

I am a mid judge if:

1. You are meh at explaining your phil
2. You are a legit theory/T debater

I am a bad judge if:

1. You are an intense policy debater. I judged one good policy round this year and it made my head hurt.
2. We are in an intense phil v phil debate
3. You over adapt and are reading buzzwords for a K that no one understands
4. You go too fast- I am so so bad at flowing

A couple more things:

1. No misgendering- speaks will get slashed after the second time and I will be more than happy to down you if your opponent asks me to
2. Plz don't read the Small Schools Disad on T fw- I think that the argument is poop
3. Postrounding is good. If I can not defend my decision I probably did not make the right decision + you are holding me accountable. Don't be super rude and we won't have any issues.

pronouns: any | email: victorthoms037@gmail.com &

millardnorthpolicy@gmail.com

TL;DR

• Read what you enjoy reading
• Tech > Truth
• Tag-Team CX (open cross) & Flex-Prep is alright
• If you have a trigger warning, offer an alternative option
• Good with speed
• Online debate: my camera broke :( but I swear im there!

Background: I debated policy for 3 years at Millard North with some experience at the nat circuit level. I qualified for nationals twice and had some success in the Nebraska circuit. I've been an assistant coach and judge throughout college. I've experienced many different arguments so at this point I'm willing to vote on anything.

Coached CX at Omaha Central (21-23)

Coached LD at Lincoln North Star (23-24)

Coaching CX at Millard North (24-25)

The not TL;DR part

General things:

I rarely intervene when making my decisions, however to make sure that never happens do the absolute bare minimum in whatever event. (i.e., weighing, solvency).

Presumption and permissibility negate.

Everything needs a warrant, I won't vote on an argument just because you told me so, give me a reason.

I need some good justifications for an RVI, its a high burden for me.

Please try to fill out your speech time, especially novices, do some weighing.

In round abuse is hard to quantify most times, unless its very obvious you should try to go for norm setting instead.

Feel free to talk to one another in the round, I don't care much for uptight and professional debate environments.

Don't get super mean or something, that's awkward.

PF: Full disclosure, I am not fully acquainted with the norms of PF, but as long as teams clearly weigh I should be able to make a cohesive and acceptable ballot.

LD:

Any arguments that aren't listed here can be found in the CX portion, I evaluate it the same.

Trad (LD) - When reading trad arguments, I'd like to see debaters go more in depth. For example, justifications for why their frameworks uniquely matter in discussing issues. This isn't necessary to win my vote, but it makes it easier for me to push my ballot in your direction. Even if its not fully explained, still weigh.

Phil (LD) - I'm not the most experienced with phil, but read it either way. I have used more phil based frameworks many times (while evaluating the round) and it has never made a scenario where I didn't know what it was talking about.

Tricks - I am not the most familiar with tricks, but I evaluate it before most other arguments in the round. If the argument is flimsy and mostly there to be a goofy time skew, I will buy your opponent's offense quite easily. Don't let my indifference stop you from reading tricks, time skews can be effective.

CX:

Larp/Plans - Plan affs are the type of affirmatives I do best with. Even if the plan text is not clear and may not fully match the evidence that is read, as long as I buy that the aff solves I tend to be ready to cast my ballot for the aff. However, I see some debaters forgetting that, unless they justify otherwise, they have to solve in order to win. Don't forget about solvency! I won't just vote on floating impact scenarios most times unless fully justified and will default presumption.

DA - If you intend on dropping the disad from the beginning, then you can ignore this section, you just keep balling. However, please be sure to explain how the disad links. I am going to be less persuaded to vote for the impact outweighing if I don't buy that it links in the first place. I can be pretty stingy about this, but it is rarely an issue.

CP - Mutual exclusivity is easy enough to justify, but how the CP solves better than the aff tends to trip some debaters up. Spend some time in the rebuttal to explain why the CP solves better. Obviously, CPs tend to be very strategic so if you bend these rules I'll be fine with that, just guide me how to evaluate it in round.

K - Read what you like, but make sure that your advocacy is clear. I appreciate Ks being a way to introduce personal advocacy into the debate space. However, make sure that you guide me on how to vote in this round, whether that be a role of the ballot or another informal fashion. If the alternative deals with post-fiat offense, describe how the alt solves and having examples ready to go in rebuttals or cx makes a ballot easier to get.

ROTB - Spend more time on your role of the ballot than you think you need to. I need to know why I should be voting the way I am, not just a baseless request. I prefer role of the ballots that do more than just imply that I should hack for the side that reads it (i.e., connect it back with why your advocacy matters). This doesn't mean I won't use it, but it will be a far easier debate for you if it is justified by whatever you are reading. I find that teams that rely on the ROB for alt solvency tend to efficient on the flow, but not effective in explanations.

Theory/ T - Can't lie, I love theory. Even if that wasn't the case, I evaluate theory first. Debaters should give examples of abuse to justify why they are reading it. These can be the most flimsy justifications in the world, but I want to see them there because if not I will buy reasonability or we-meets easily. Justifications allow me to ignore time skew arguments read by opponents.