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!

Hello, I am a parent judge in my 3rd year of LD judging. My preferences:

1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.

2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.

Hello! I mostly have a British parliamentary background, but have also debated a bit in the worlds schools format (third speeches). Here are just some tips/ things that I am looking for.

Harvard HST (Lincoln - Douglas): Read all of the below under world schools, but no marks for rhetoric. You may speak relatively fast, but don't spread. If you have "evidence" but don't also provide warrants, that means nothing to me. Don't impact outrageously.

Harvard World Schools Tournament:

1. The team that wins is the team that wins the most important clashes in the debate. Debate is all about clashes

2. Teams going for the same impact, with different but unrefuted warrants is (in most cases) not a great idea. Think about it this way, if you say that you get X, and so do the Opp, I have to judge the shift in the world caused by that clash as the difference between the two, instead of just crediting the entirety of the benefits to one team

3. I think that strong rhetoric can heavily impact the weight placed on certain impacts, but you can never win a clash, when the warrants are stronger on the other side, as a result of good rhetoric.

4. Speak slow, or I will not be able to flow (and you'll probably lose style points too)

5. The more unintuitive your argument is to the average reasonable voter, the higher your burden of proof in relation to the claim is!

6. Opp should provide independent reasons to not vote for their side. Most rebuttal, unless you are able to flip the impact to your side is purely mitigatory. This is not enough to count as a positive contribution.

6. Have fun! Statistically 50% of teams will lose the round, but if you enjoyed it/ learnt something, you're a winner 100% of the time!

I am a parent/lay judge and do not value spreading or critiquing when judging.

I wish you all the very best at the tournament. Congratulations on all of your hard work to get here.

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

TLDR:

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

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

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

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

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

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

Larp: 1-3

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

Tricks: strike

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

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

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

How I view rounds:

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

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long U/V: Go for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26: You are not nice.

PLEASE EMAIL YOUR CASE AT THE BEGININNG OF ROUND - ADD ME TO EMAIL CHAIN (LAURAARRADONDO14[-@]YAHOO.COM)

My primary role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both debaters and decide which side presented a more compelling case. Here are some key considerations I will be using to evaluate the debate:

1. Value Criterion: Every Lincoln Douglas debate centers around a value and a criterion that supports that value. Please ensure your value is clearly stated as well as your supporting criteria.

2. Clarity and Logic: Debaters must present their arguments in a clear and logical manner. The arguments should flow smoothly from one point to another, and the debaters should avoid contradictions.

3. Evidence and Examples: Both debaters should support their arguments with evidence and examples. I am looking for the quality and relevance of evidence presented and how well it is used to support the debater's points.

4. Clash: I will be evaluating how well each debater engages with and responds to the arguments of the other.

5. Presentation: Debaters should speak clearly and at a good pace, making good eye contact with the judge, avoiding excessive hand gestures or verbal fillers. NO SPREADING

6. Etiquette: I expect respectful and courteous conduct throughout the debate essential. It includes not interrupting other speakers, being polite and attentive, and avoiding personal attacks.

7. Overall Persuasiveness: In the end, I will decide which debater presented the more persuasive case, considering all of the above factors when making my decision.

NO SPREADING

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Your links are bad, your impacts won't happen, and you're wasting my time. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't aspec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

I will dock half a speaker point if you use Moen 16 or Goodin 95 in your framework. They are wildly overused, and most cuts don't say what people claim they do.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Senior in college, 6 years of high school pf experience

I am able to adapt to most forms of debate however, be mindful of your speed. I can manage most speed speaking but it must be clear and understandable. If you speak unintelligibly I will not be able to take note of your points and will not be able to account for them when making a decision.

My focus will be on the points brought up during the debate. Please make sure to fit your speech within the allotted time as any arguments past time will not be accounted for (Unless otherwise noted)

Although it will not be majorly accounted for, the way in which information is provided and your speaking will also count towards my decision. If some information is too technically based it should have a brief explanation accompanying it.

Hello,

My name is Alessandro, and I am an undergraduate college student with four years of high school debate experience. I have not done public forum or Lincoln–Douglas, but I have participated in parliamentary-style and Oregon-style debate tournaments, as well as other public speaking tournaments. In your speeches, imagine that you are talking to your average, well-informed voter. I usually prefer quality of speaking over talking speed and content, so try to strike a reasonable balance.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I'm excited to judge your debates!!

Background and Qualifications: I did Lincoln-Douglas in high school + one year of world schools. In college, I did a year of policy, and two-ish years of British and American Parliamentary. I was on the 2021 LD topic committee. I don’t compete anymore.

Affiliations: I helped coach Greenhill School and the USA Debate Team. I debated for St. Andrew's Episcopal in high school and help them too sometimes. I'm not active in coaching.

Rules: You must be respectful to everybody in the round. Don't be mean.

Main Thought for Harvard 2023: I have lots of strong personal thoughts on arguments that are popular in LD. I've written about those thoughts below, but honestly, when push comes to shove, I end up needing to see debaters do the job themselves in order to vote for them. For example, if one team reads like two minutes of short skepticism arguments and the negative stands up and persuasively explains for 30 seconds why this is silly (the arguments are too short, incomplete, and my prior against them should be high), then, I think we're all good to go! However, if both debaters debate on their own terms, then I'll accept it.

For LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com, greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Form-level thoughts about arguments:

1) I am against excessively quick, unclear speaking in debates. You can speak at a brisk-to-quick pace. Just be sure that every word you say is understandable. I will, however, call clear a lot. If I say clear, please go back and say your argument again.

• I'm not opening the speech document until after the round. I'll just flow what I understand, and I don't understand much anymore really.
• I will not vote on an argument that I could not follow in the first speech.
• If I can't understand the words you're saying while you read a card, I won't count the card as read.

2) If an argument is dropped, you receive the implication of its warrant, not its tag. Let's take a pretty contrived example and say both sides make theory arguments. The aff then says "aff theory prior to neg theory," and backs this up with some well-warranted claims about side bias, speech times, etc. I think if this is dropped, I still won't automatically evaluate aff theory before neg theory. The warrants in the argument push me to care a bit more about aff fairness impacts but at no point was there a good connection between why a bit of side bias means aff theory is always first. So, a dropped argument gives you the full weight of its warrant, not its claim or asserted implication. It's fair to say that this is subjective but I think a lot of debate already is. Just be reasonable and weigh!

3) I’m very persuaded by specific arguments. You can't win no progress if you drop that the plan solves, you can't win threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, you won’t win “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link to it, etc.

4) I start the debate with a prior on liberal principles (not in the left sense, in the like the free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc sense). This is not immutable - the gist is that the more extreme your position is, the more active effort it will take on your part to convince me. Two equally well explained arguments, one stemming from liberal principles and one stemming from fascist principles, are not evaluated equally. So, you are better served by claims closer to the truth. This article summarizes this view well.

5) I think it is inevitable and good that judges assess the relative quality of the warranting behind two competing claims. Debaters should ideally do this themselves, but to some degree, judges have to actively decide.

A Personal Preference:

My preference is to see well-researched arguments about the topic. These don't need to meet any form. On open borders, you can make an extremely interesting critical argument about labor exploitation! I want to see that you're researching about the things that this topic can teach you. My ideal debate is one about the merits of open borders, on balance.

Also, please be transparent about your argument. Don't give long-winded cross-ex answers that don't answer the question, don't be coy about the function or content of the argument. Defend what you think you should win on!

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm, Bennett Eckert's paradigm.

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

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

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley and college @ NYU for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

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

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

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

-great for impact turns

-fairness is more of an internal link or impact filter than an impact itself

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

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

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

-apparently, I take a long time with my decisions - often I go all the way to the decision time - this does not say anything about the debate, I am just trying to give the best feedback possible, so don't read into it

-I'm a masters student studying the history of 20th-century French social thought - aside from that debate is basically all I do and I don't have a lot of other hobbies - I listen to audiobooks and read in transit, occasionally play some video games - between coaching both high school and college I am at debate tournaments nearly every weekend of the season - I find myself incredibly lucky that I get to spend most of my time thinking about history, philosophy, theory, policy, and ideas - I love learning interesting things in debates and if you want to chat about something, feel free to reach out

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

How to use - look for your section. First with what format you are in. Now that I'm judging/coaching both LD and policy at the same time, I've split it up between the two activities, with the things that I find most relevant to each. Second with the kind of debate you think you might have in front of me - based on what you read, your opponent reads, the panel, etc. If there's a kind of debate you think you are going to have that you don't find though, try scanning the other activity for the bolded parts to see if it's mentioned. I would prefer that you do not change your style of debate based on what you think my preferences are, but instead read what you've dedicated your time to, feel most passionate about, and feel most confident in.

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

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

I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. For rebuttals and analytics that I can't find when I grumpily tab to the speech doc, I will yell clear twice before I stop flowing. If it's in the speech doc, I'll probably flow the important things off the doc unhappily, but it will affect your speaker points.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. There are a few reasons for this. First, I like it when tournaments run on time and the primary determiners of their timeliness are debaters and judges. Tabrooms like this too, and they already have a hard enough job. Second, I would like to have as much time for my decision as possible. In the decision time, I am trying to put together both the best decision possible and also the best feedback possible for you to improve. I can think of a few decisions off the top of my head that I've later thought might've been wrong or where my explanation in RFD didn’t make much sense - let's be real, judges are human and everyone makes mistakes - for all of these decisions that come to mind however, limited time to actually make my decision played a significant factor. I try my best, but please, it really is better for you if you do everything you can to make things run quickly. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. CX or prep time needs to be taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take time for tech issues and am of course fine with bathroom breaks or whatever debaters need - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I enjoy reading large fantasy and sci-fi novels in my free time. Relatable references to such in a final rebuttal speech can earn up to +.2 speaker points :) - I especially like Brandon Sanderson. Sci-fi/speculative fiction affs are also super cool.

For LD:
How you should pref me: I don't believe in ranking myself as a "1" for certain kinds of debates or a "strike" for others. I am interested in many kinds of debate and try to evaluate any argument presented in front of me to the best of my ability. Also, I really hate the idea of being confined to certain bubbles in debate or being isolated from interesting arguments. All that being said, I of course have more experience in some arguments than others, and the biases that come with that. I come from policy debate. I started my sophomore year of high school, where I competed in mostly lay divisions aside from two weeks of debate camp. I then competed for 4 years on the NDT/CEDA circuit in college, had some moderate success, etc.

Though I say I did lay debate, it was very unlike what you would consider "traditional" debate in LD. I did in fact not spread, have debates mostly in front of parents, and not read so-called "progressive" arguments like kritiks or theory very often. However, all those debates were done with policy resolutions and in a policy format. This involved some "stock issues" debate, which I don't think is useful to elaborate on, but mainly just standard disads, advantage cps, some pics, solvency arguments - what you all would call "larp," just at a slower speed and with more traditional appeal. In college, I was fairly flexible for policy standards, and oscillated between reading stuff with big stick impacts and kritiks with a lot of French theory authors. In college I spread and exclusively did "progressive" debate - I spent a lot more time on debate overall in college than in high school.

The debates that I've had by far the most experience with overall are plans vs. cp/da, plans vs. kritiks, and k-affs vs. t-fw. Secondary to those are probably k v. k debates. The kinds of debates that I've had the least amount of experience with are what you would call "traditional." I come to these debates from the opposite perspective of you all - things like value/value-criterion feel jargony and I often struggle to figure out what it means for how I should decide the debate. If you are having this kind of debate in front of me, please treat me like a true lay person, and assume that unless you are reading util I will be probably unfamiliar with your framework and will not automatically know why you winning your value-criterion means that you should win the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

For JF23 - Plans are debatable, but if your interpretation is that "open borders" means you get to spec any single border between two states, you should be prepared for a very large limits disad. The resolution does not have an actor and does not say "ought" or "should." Please keep this in mind when having debates about whether affs have to defend implementation or a policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Policy:

T-Framework: It seems this is the main reason most people read paradigms these days. I have voted both ways in these debates, and have been on both sides (2A reading a k aff & 1N going for fw in the block) of the framework debate in my career.

Neg --I think negative teams here most often miss why things like fairness and education are important. Impact these claims out into some tangible benefit that I can compare against the impact turn. Writing a neg ballot only on procedural fairness is hard for me. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. These debates leave me wondering how to compare fairness to something tangible like psychological violence or political passivity in a traditional impact calc sense. I find fairness much more convincing to me as an impact filter, i.e. a reason to be skeptical of the case page, ensuring better clash, etc. This is considered a hot take by a lot of people, but I really don't understand why. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyways), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me reasonably compare it to the impact turn. Perhaps if you read something like deontology arguments that say fairness is a virtue I must always preserve, I could vote on it alone, but in a utilitarian sense, I just don't know how to weigh it against anything. Fairness as a filter to some neg arguments and a more external impact like skills or topic-specific education is a much more convincing ballot for me. When I do vote on fairness alone, it is usually because the negative team has also forwarded substantial defensive arguments like a convincing TVA, read it on the neg, or c/i links to aff offense that mitigates the risk of the impact turn to nearly zero.

Aff -- I generally prefer aff strategies that just impact turn framework. I have seen and voted for predictable counter-interps, but a lot of the time it feels like an uphill battle. Most of the time, the neg is able to tie a good chunk of their offense to the predictability portion of the debate, which really hurts c/i solvency. That being said, a counter-interp can still mitigate a good amount of neg offense, so it may be still good to have one even if you are impact turning some of the neg's stuff. I just wouldn't recommend it as the focus of your strategy. Like the neg however, aff teams need to do more than make nebulous references to things like psychological violence. What kind of violence, and why is it more important than debating the topic? Explain to me in clear terms what the impact to your impact turn is. Be careful of large defensive arguments. I have dropped a number of teams who mishandle read it on the neg or who read impact turns that link to their own interp.

Everyone needs to compare their impacts to the other side's as well as relative solvency of the interps, and tell me why I should vote for them. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. For affs, pick either the impact turn strat or the perm strat and stick with it. I like impact turns better, but sometimes perms are more strategic. I'm not sure how useful this is, but the way I think about kritiks may also be a bit different than what you're used to. Rather than thinking about it as a non-unique disad with a counterplan, I think about the impacts as negative effects of the status quo, the alternative as a way of resolving the status quo, and the links as reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening, rather than something that directly causes the impacts. This framing helps me a lot when I'm thinking through permutations. This is of course when I'm evaluating something like fiat. Winning that the debate should only be about representations and that the affirmative's reps are bad for scholarship is also a convincing ballot for me.

Literature I am intimately familiar with (have run these arguments frequently and/or have done other research outside of debate into them): Cap, Psychoanalysis (more Lacan than Freud), Baudrillard, Foucault, DnG, Bataille, plant ontology (lol), Bifo, Edelman, Puar.

Literature I am somewhat familiar with (have run these arguments infrequently or done some coaching on them): Derrida, Wilderson, Warren, Set Col.

Anything else assume that I have little or no familiarity with.

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

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing. I don't automatically presume a 1% chance of the link for the whole debate just because you read 1 or 2 bad cards in the 1NC. You have to actually win the link debate for me to grant you a chance of a link.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. I read some wonky process cps and pics in my career but if the aff wins theory then they win theory. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

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

Theory: Being a 2A I think makes more inherently sympathetic to affs on theory questions and the like. I think condo has gone way too far in recent years, especially with multi-plank counterplans that have dozens or hundreds of possible combinations that can all be kicked. If the aff wins new affs are good, it doesn't make sense to me why new affs would then justify unbridled conditionality. That being said, I do my best to evaluate theory arguments as well as I would any other argument in debate. I haven't thought too hard about other theory questions. If you're winning it as a reason to reject the team, feel free to go for it no matter how silly you think it is.

I do not have topic knowledge this year. Proceed accordingly.

Some Important Notes:

- Tech > “truth”, I will do my best to ensure that if you win the flow, you win the debate

- Signpost, signpost, signpost, I can't stress it enough

- Please share your notes if possible and keep me on the email chain (keval.botadra@gmail.com)

- CLEAR AND CONCISE IMPACT CALC WILL WIN YOU MY BALLOT

Policy Aff:

I like policy affs and look forward to learning about current political events in each debate round.

K Aff:

I am impartial to K Affs, but it would be appreciated if you properly explain it.

DA:

I like DAs and look forward to hearing about any disadvantages to plans I hear in debate rounds.

CP:

I like CPs and am open to hearing alternative plans to what was proposed by the 1AC.

K:

I am impartial to K Affs, but it would be appreciated if you properly explain it.

Framework:

I love to hear framework run against both kritiks and kritikal affs since they provoke interesting theory arguments. Please be clear when running framework.

Theory:

I am not very well-versed in theory so ensure that you explain any theory vocab well during the round. I do not have any aversions to a well-run theory argument.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense (though it should have appropriately support for the moral framework in LD as well). Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21, Teachers College '23 (Studying Philosophy and Education)

Head of Debate at the Brearley School, Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Preparatory

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 3/28/2023 before TOC

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially those based in early modern (Spinoza), German idealist (Kant & Hegel), and continental (Deleuze, Derrida, Heidegger) philosophy.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I evaluate debates systematically. I begin by attempting to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, examples include frameworks or weighing arguments which specify which impacts matter, a theory argument, a kritik, etc. Once I have determined the priority of layers, I proceed to evaluating the different arguments on each layer, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and whatever else is necessary to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I am no longer very actively involved in thinking about varsity national circuit debate and its niche strategies. While I find that I am okay with positions with complicated content when well explained, I understand the technical form of arguments less and less.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas, however I prefer that debaters adapt within the standards of the event at hand. That means I do not necessarily want to see arguments popular in other events - such as theory - in a PF round. However, inevitably many of my opinions above and my background in LD remains part of my perception.

I do not have an opinion on whether the second rebuttal should just respond to their opponents case or both respond and rebuild their own case. Do whatever suites your strategic and persuasive preferences.

Debaters ought to cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting; I am extremely skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

30 speaker points demonstrates an exceptional or outstanding performance, passion, and/or argument.

Updated 3/18/23 Post-UIL CX State

Hi everyone! I’m Holden (They/He)

Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23 (Go Mean Green)

If you are a senior and gradauting this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you. If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

Please put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

The short version:

I truly do not have an issue in what style of debate you decide to partake in, I am dogmatic against dogmatism as I think it is a bad model of debate. That being said, I prefer debates not end up being very theory shell heavy (despite what my judging history might suggest otherwise). This is not to say that I will not vote for whatever shell you decide to run (barring some caveats that are mentioned below), but rather I would much rather judge debates that are centered around substance (namely a da/cp, a k, or an nc). Despite that, I have voted for just about every argument under the sun. Bad arguments exist, and I dislike them, but the onus is on you for calling out and explaining why those arguments are bad.

Respect your opponents pronouns or else. I have no tolerance for individuals not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get one chance, with your speaks being docked that one time. If you do it again after that, then my ballot is gone even if there is no argument made. With that in mind, I am also extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.

If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.

Tech>Truth

Yes speed, but clarity is important as well

For your pref sheets:

Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1

K – 1

Policy – 1

Phil – 1

T/Theory – 1

Tricks – 4

Trad – 5/Strike

I’m serious about these rankings, I value execution over content. I am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox just less grumpy, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.

Some individuals who have shaped how I debate/have coached me: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, and Shawn Moore (if you know who this is then you are way too old to be debating in front of me)

Some of my former students who share the majority of my opinions/you might pref me similar to: Vishal Sivamani, William Walker, Armaan Christ, and Graham Johnstone.

Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.

I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please

The long version:

Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?

Hi, I'm Holden! I did LD and policy throughout high school, I wasn't too involved with the national circuit because of financial constraints but I did well at a few big tournaments during my high school career. I now attend the University of North Texas, where I study psychology and philosophy. In addition, I compete in NFA-LD (literally a one person policy event), I have had some moderate success (qualified for and made it to octafinals of the national tournament). I currently coach and judge national circuit LD, where I have judged 500+ debates since 2020. In addition, I have coached students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and late elims of national tournaments (including elims and top speaker of the TOC).

Nowadays, most of my research is on the k side of the argument spectrum. However, I often say that politics updates are my catharsis, and have cut and coached students to go for arguments in every style of debate. This includes theory, policy, tricks, phil, and kritikal positions.

Call me Holden or judge (I prefer Holden, and judge will also do). Anything more formal (Mr. Bukowsky, Sir, etc.) makes me uncomfortable, and may result in your speaks being docked.

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). For LD I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and coach Barrington AC, Clear Lake AA, Jordan FJ, Los Altos BF, San Mateo ZS, Sidwell SW, and Unionville IQ. For policy I work with Sidwell/Georgetown Independent WS.

I have been previously affiliated with: Cabot, Perry JA, Plano West AW, and Unionville IQ.

What does Holden think of debate?

Debate is a game with educational implications. I love this activity very much, and take my role in it very seriously. I think it is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I am not very ideological in a way that translates to how I evaluate the debate (barring some exceptions) because it's not my place to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. That means please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted that violent or warrantless arguments are exceptions). As such, I consider there to be two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preferences I may have should not matter if you make the argument for me, if I have to default to something then that means that you did not do your job.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key

I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be.

To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, I don't care just tell me that you're taking it.

I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.

I dislike t - bare plurals.

How has Holden voted?

Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged exactly 551 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 54.08% of the time.

My average speaks for the 2022-2023 season have been 28.532, across my entire time judging they are at 28.507

I have been apart of 140 panels, of those I have sat exactly 17 times (Harvard was rough).

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.)

Arguments that say oppression is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments:

Contrary to my reputation, I actually quite enjoy and have a good amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do quite a bit of research for policy arguments, and do topic research on that side of ground very often. I love a good disad and case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, I think most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about this and love when people make these arguments

Impact turn debates are some of my favorite, give me more of them please and thank you

I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker

I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier

I enjoy really well researched process counterplans. Absolutely makes me smile when the evidence is topic specific, and has great solvency advocates.

Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please

Explain what the permutation looks like, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you

For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy

Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please

K’s:

A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. I think that certain authors make particular claims about the adoption of Afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this question are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you get to do whatever with the argument. If you are reading this critique as a non-black person, this becomes the round. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.

This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the k need to go for framework and extinction outweighs more

My ideal k 1nc will have 2-3 links contextual to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech

I've found that most k teams have become rusty at debating the impact turn (heg good/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are agaisnt the k, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above)

I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.

Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year (for example, if you're reading argument related to Settler Colonialism and can't name the 6 settler moves to innocence)

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC please so they can be floating

For you nerds that wanna know, the literature bases I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Scranton/Eco-pessimism, and Settler Colonialism

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Abolition, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, Queer-pessimism, Disability literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar

K-Aff’s:

Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you

Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.

For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, etc. and quite enjoy judging these debates

Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks

T-Framework/T-USFG:

Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you

I am of the opinion that most framework debates take place on an impact level, with the internal link to those impacts most of the time never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate

Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders

In terms of impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>>>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate their arguments so hack against them," if the latter is your explanation then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose

Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):

I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy

My normal defaults for these debates are:

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp not your aff, people need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory shells

Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument

For all that is holy get over Nebel T and run topic contextual interps, I've heard the same limits v pics debate about 40 times and I'm tired of it

Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please

You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad

Weigh your internal links please and thank you

Theory:

I judge this type of debate a lot, and probably more than most judges. So you'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I just ask that you don't blitz through analytics and make good indepth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to the standards you're going for. I find that a well explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me be conceputally more persuaded by the impacts you go for

Conditionality is good if you win it's such. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go right ahead but just dismissing condo bad like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. To clarify, I think condo is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it better be robust if you plan on using abusing conditionality vehemently

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that say that implicate that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2ar arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Here are my defaults for counterplan theory:

- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good

- PICs = good

- Process CP's = good

- Consult CP's = bad

- States CP's = good

- Actor/Agent CP's = good

- Object Fiat = bad

Tricks debate:

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments that are based on intense arguments of logic. I need this explanation to be toned down so I can actually follow what’s going on, these make my head hurt and I did not pay enough attention in my logic class to know/understand exactly what you're talking about.

I think that my thoughts about this are "please don't if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate you can go ham"

I can judge these debates, and have coached debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not. I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to be happy about the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am"

Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.

Tricks versus identity-based affirmatives is violent, and bad. Stop it.

Phil:

I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.

Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing

In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates

Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long

Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza

I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty

Independent Voters:

Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:

1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening

2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate

This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.

Traditional/Lay Debate:

Yes, I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my opinion go right ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.

Evidence Ethics:

I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.

Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says

For the policy kids-

Full disclosure, I am normally a circuit LD judge but have been judging policy more lately (judged at grapevine and a lot of rounds at camp this year). I did policy in high school, and research/run policy arguments in college now so I will know what's going on.Most of my takes should be summarized above, I think my takes on framework aren’t as dogmatic as I once thought, I think this is because I’ve noticed how much better impact explanation occurs in policy and as such any predispositions listed above can be easily overcome by just solid impact calculus when going for T versus critical affirmatives (no joke framework has a 100% win rate in front of me in policy). I also think I’m better at evaluating policy throw-downs than I thought/once was. All that matters is link contextualization, developing a turns case argument, and implicating your arguments to help resolve the rest of the flow. I like impact turns (dedev, heg good/bad, etc.), I like debaters that make rounds clean, and I like judge instruction. Framework isn't genocide but it's not the holy grail, clash > fairness.

Also neutral on questions such as condo, if you win it you win it, being dogmatic on these questions are bad takes.

- Sign post please

- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)

- Yes open cross

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out my speaks, any additional speaker points you get via my challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to earn/work for

Across over 200+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.5 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy

A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges

I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below

They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -

29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool

27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Challenges:

Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)

Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K

Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K

Tech---X-------Truth

Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin

Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read

Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this

Condo--X--------No condo

Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs

Overviews--------X--LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact-----X-----Fairness is definitely not an impact

Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose

"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)

Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework

Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant

Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots

Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face

ClashX----------Cowardice

Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things

Speaker point fairy------X----Speaker point goblin

LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool

"Judge/Mr. Bukowsky"----------X"Holden"

Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Happy debating!!!!!!!!!

adcandelario0422@gmail.com

Harvard 24'

6 years of Policy Experience - I know nothing about this years topic, do with that what you will.

I like K v K debates.

I think the most convincing internal links in framework debates is clash and impact is education.

I enjoy impact turns to framework.

All K arguments are fine w me - I am more familiar with identity arguments than the post-modern french existentialist.

I hate voting 1 sentence voting issues/ framing DAs but I will.

Dedev debates are fun!

Warming impact turns are not fun!

kicking the aff in the 1ar and impact turning a K or DA is fun!

I love when debaters can recognize how many arguments are interacting with eachother in a round and make smart cross applications.

Thoughts on the big things.

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech------------X----------------------------------Truth

Judge Kick----------X-----------------------------No Judge Kick

Read no cards-----------------X------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good----------X--------------------Conditionality bad

Politics DA is a thing--------------------X--------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL---------------------------------X------Sometimes VTL

UQ matters most------------------------------X--Link matters most

Fairness is a thing---------------------X----------You're racist/ The world doesn't actually exist

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------------X----------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: --x------------------------------------------------------ A2:

no alt---------X---------------------------------alt

turns case X---------------------------no turns case

shaking my hand-----------------------------------------X Don't touch me

P.S.

Debater Things -

- Yes Im good with speed.

- I flow you not your speech doc.

- speed is a tool not debate.

- Card Clipping/Stealing Prep - its a no-no. If your caught-I will talk to a coach. For novice debates, I give more lee-way with "end prep-to speech" time because I understand your all new at this but will say something.

- Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc. Is a D-Rule. I will legit drop you to 20's, vote you down, and not think twice.

- Death arguments are fine in front of me

-CW/TW is a must

Scarsdale '21, MIT '25

FB: Curtis Chang

Email: caiti008@gmail.com

I'm Curtis (He/Him)

BE ON TIME OR I WILL DOCK SPEAKS

i prefer speech drop but am fine with email

i literally do not know what the topic is so don't assume i know anything. i have not judged debate in over a year so START SLOW, I AM NOT AFRAID TO YELL SLOW/CLEAR/LOUDER AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED AND WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU DO NOT DO SO; anything i don't flow is on you (although i haven't flowed in over a year either so i'm probably not great at that too)

not loving the increasing trend towards massive prepped out analytic dumps :/ if you're reading one i'd prefer you send it to help me follow along, but i'll reward debaters who clearly are extemping smart arguments instead of just reading out of files in rebuttals. i also REALLY hate args like "eval after X" and "no neg args" so i'll begrudgingly vote on it only if it's completely conceded (UPDATE: on second thought i hate these args too much and i will not vote on these. examples of things on this list: GSP, Zeno's Paradox, eval after 1nc, no neg args. things not on this list: presumption/permissibility triggers out of frameworks, i actually love this and went for them a lot. unclear about an argument? just message me)

probably sort of out of touch with debate now but i'll attach my caselist wikis from when i debated for 19-20 (aff, neg) and 20-21 (aff, neg) so let that influence how to pref me however you want. i'll do my best to be tab/evaluate the flow still, so read whatever you want; my ideological preferences are much less strong than they used to be, although i'll still be upset if you read a shitstorm of a prioris and really fucking terrible theory arguments

most importantly have fun! im only judging for fun so pls don't take me/the round too seriously

Pronouns: she/her

email: thaliacharles915@gmail.com

I competed in CX and LD debate in high school and NFA-LD and parliamentary debate in college (East Coast).

General:

1. I prefer traditional/lay to progressive debates. I prefer a slower debate.

2. I love a passionate debate, but don’t be rude to your opponent. You can be sassy but don’t be mean or condescending. I will adjust speaker points accordingly.

3. Speaker points- I don’t think there is an exact science to speaker points, but basically I’m going to give you low speaker points if you intentionally use any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist language against your opponent (or me!). Debate rounds should not be boring! There is a lot of possibility for education in each round. That is exciting. I’m going to give higher speaks to the person who is a more engaging speaker.

4. Signpost!

5. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity where you learn important life skills. I think one of the most important skills I learned from debate is how to clearly communicate a point. So, crystallize, crystallize, crystallize! Write my ballot for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

6. Stats are important, but this is LD, not policy. I don’t want the round to devolve into a debate about a stat or a card.

7. If you are going to do a progressive debate, I do love a good K. Make sure it has a strong link tho.

Framework:

1. The framework debate is key in LD. This is a philosophical style of debate. Do not neglect the value debate. If one side drops framework and focuses on the policy debate and the other side picks it up, I’m voting for the side that addresses the value debate.

2. If you’re using an uncommon V and/or VC, explain it to me. I encourage fresh V and VCs, as it could make for a more educational debate.

3. Warrant your framework. Explain why your V and VC are relevant to the resolution.

4. Impacts are always important. You need to explain the impacts of affirming and negating your case and weigh them (especially if you have a consequentialist value system). What is at stake? Tie your value system into your impacts.

VOTERS:

1. Framework- To win my ballot, you need to convince me which value system should guide my decision and how your case fulfills that value system.
2. Impacts and weighing.
3. Clear crystallization.

Ideally, the winner of the round would clearly uphold their value system, have strong impacts, and clear crystallization. Obviously, the ideal is the ideal. If you win on framework and lose on impact, you’ve gotten my ballot.

Extra note:

(This isn’t important but some insight into me) I work in the legal field, where these philosophical debates are very real. People have very different views of what “justice” or “morality” means— and caught in the middle of these competing interps are people and their lives. So, I just ask you to remember that these debates are not abstract, real life policymakers are having these debates, and just try to recognize the humanity. Basically, in judging and competing, I have debated and seen people debate some arguments that are dehumanizing in service of winning a round. There is a stronger argument out there. You can find it. (Not trying to chill speech but trying to encourage stronger argumentation and education)

Harvard updates:

Email: tchathur16@gmail.com

No disclosure theory! For real though.. I cannot vote on text message screenshots with emojis and haha reactions... like is that not judge intervention?! It seems that I am attracting a lot of FW vs K aff debates and something you need to do in LD as both parties is engage with the other side rather than this infinitely regressive up layering strategy people seem to be going for. LD is different from policy in that you do not have the privilege of a debate partner standing up in a separate speech doing that work for you!

Affiliations: Barrington high school

I debated LD on the local and nat circuits for four years at Barrington High School. I competed in college policy at UW-Madison and graduated in 2021! :)

TL;DR: Have fun! Don’t be mean. Read anything you want in front of me as long as it’s well explained and warranted. Slow down for tags, authors, interps, numbers, and important issues in the final rebuttals. Don’t be a sexist, homophobic, racist etc. debate is a safe space and you are not welcome here if you intentionally hurt others. If you have any questions please ask. Rupaul's Drag Race references make my day better and will be reflected in your speaks <3 <3

Speed/In round things: Go as slow or as fast as you want, but please please please please please please be clear. I want an email chain. Please disclose otherwise we're going to have a debate about disclosure theory and I really will be sad judging that debate. Like extremely sad and your speaks will probably suffer. I'm good with flex prep just sort that out with your opponent. I get that prep time is super stressful and I'm not going to enforce the prep ends when you send out the email chain. Just take your prep and then you can send it out (IN A TIMELY MANNER PLEASE).

Policy

Plans: If you're planning on having like 80 million blip cards please slow down for tags and authors :)

Cps: consult Cps are probably theoretically illegitimate but that being said you can have that theory debate and I feel confident judging that type of debate; should be competitive; I also don't really care if it's topical or non-topical either as long as it's won.

DAs: (true for plans too) Super long link chains etc will require more from you to win the arg; other than that do your thing

K (AFF): If you have sensitive content trigger warning please! I am also totally good with performance affs using songs, narratives, and poems (and yall can go for them as offense too). Also, if I think your aff is super strategic, meaningful and well-written, regardless of the outcome of the round you’ll likely get high speaks because I love it when debaters put a lot of thought into their advocacies. If you’re hitting FW(policy framework not value and value criterion) there’s got to be a good analysis on the impact turns (same applies to T and theory).

(Neg): I'm fine with anything, just as long as you slow down in the 2NR and really take time to explain what is going on. I may not always be super super familiar with super Pomo args so just make sure to crystallize and explain the implication of your args. If the K is your A strat Don’t concede the permutation. Just don’t do it.I need a good link story and how the alt frames the aff in the 2NR or I will probably be more compelled to vote on the 2AR responses . I also think K tricks are pretty strategic, go for the floating PIK/value to life arguments/linear Das to the aff. I think the aff should be prepared to deal with a lot of these strategies and it’ll take some work to get me to vote otherwise because most of the time the neg is ahead on this issue.

Condo: This is more of a policy thing but if you read like 7 conditional advocacies as the negative, I’ll sympathize with the affirmative in the sense that 1ar extensions don’t need to be the best because TIME SKEW IS REAL. Also, I’ll probably err aff on that theory debate just because it’s the burden of proof on the negative to tell me why reading so many conditional advocacies is good for education and is a fair practice—but hey if you win it I’ll vote on it. I’ll grant the negative one conditional advocacy as a default though since it is necessary to test the affirmative from multiple angles.

FW: makes the game work

T: YEET. T is fine and I enjoy debating T in policy. Multiple T interps is probably unfair but whatever y'all gotta do y'all gotta do. Default competing interps.

LD:

I believe that theory can be used as a winning strategy, since I did this a lot as a debater. I AM TOTALLY OK with 1Ns going for frivolous theory as long as it’s convincing enough of an abuse story. However, 1AR metatheory is given a lot of lee way (don’t know if I spelled that right) for multiple shells and other off cases. In terms of debating theory, I am super persuaded by good standards overviews in your final speeches instead of going for the nitty gritty line by line. Often times, I think debaters just get lost on the tech aspect of theory but don’t actually weigh their arguments. If there’s no weighing done I will have to intervene and I probably won’t be happy doing it. I default to theory coming before substance.. not sure why some people make the argument that contention offense comes first. I won’t vote on it if you make it.. so don’t make it :P. If you’re going for a non traditional voter like substantive engagement, you’ll have to do some work telling me why it comes before fairness and education.

I meets: don’t just say I meet and not fully warrant your explanation; if I can’t remember why you meet the interp at the end of the round then I will probably drop you and you won’t be happy.

RVIs: I default to no RVI. Obvi I’ll vote on it if it’s justified and explained clearly.

Drop the Debater vs. Drop the Arg: DD as a default. I’ll vote on drop the arg if it’s won.

Tricks/Spikes/Fun Stuff: People don’t usually read a wall of spikes anymore, but if that applies to your aff here are a few things to keep in mind when you’re debating in front of me:

1) I don’t want the case to be an unintelligible block of text. I.e there needs to be some form of demarcation within the wall of spikes so I know how many/what arguments you have

2) I can’t believe this was ever a thing but concealing spikes within spikes is probably a good way to lose the round in front of me. For example, saying “all neg interps are counterinterps because of x,y,z. Furthermore, [totally new spike that’s unrelated to the previous spike]”. No one’s going to be able to flow that, and I certainly will not flow it. If it’s not on my flow then I cannot vote on it.

3) Definitely have fun with tricks and spikes and other funny arguments you want to read. I really enjoyed these debates and think they are quite fun. If you are able to successfully go for a win off of a dropped spike that’s a win 30—no questions asked. If there are clear internal links to fairness and education in your spikes you don’t need to spend too much time on extending them in the 1AR. A simple “voter for fairness and education drop the debater because [] no RVI because []” is sufficient.

Condo: see policy

K: see policy

Policy args: see policy

Actual FW LD Debate: don’t pref me unless you’re going to rely on some trick or something to spike out of their offense or will actually crystallize and explain stuff to me because honestly I am incompetent at evaluating competing ethical FWs.

Traditional Debate: WEIGHWEIGHWEIGH. Even if it’s not nat debate just explain stuff to me with good overviews. Also traditional debate does not mean that tech isn’t an issue. A dropped argument is a true argument. Don’t make me vote on the value debate because I definitely will not do that. I default to both cases valuing morality so don’t even bother wasting time on that argument if your opponent has a value of morality.

I debated LD extensively in high school. I am comfortable judging LD, policy, and PF. LD is my first love.

I flow very closely. I look at the value and VC and see if you can convince me that your contentions and evidence consistently support your position. I also pay very close attention to rebuttals. I need you to attack the contentions explicitly. I like a "crystallization" if you will at the end of your final speech on the main issues.

Please do not have a war over evidence- I need evidence to be accurate and cited but more than that its a waste of time.

I do pay attention to delivery - I am not a fan of spreading but I accept is as part of the norm.

At the end of the day, I consider this activity to be essential in my development as a person and recall my debate days quite fondly.

I hope you have fun and come to the round with a mindset to learn and grow.

PLEASE NOTE - FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS- DO NOT TURN OFF YOUR CAMERAS. I AM FINE WITH DISCLOSURES PROVIDED THEY ARE TWO WAY AND AGREED UPON MUTUALLY. PLEASE DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE ELSE DURING THE ROUND IN REFERENCE TO THE DEBATE ITSELF AND FOR COACHING - THIS IS UNETHICAL AND VIOLATES NSDA rules (refer to the unified manual). Furthermore, sharing the cases during your round with other teammates violates the rules.

I find it sad that I have to even add this to my paradigm.

frasatc@gmail.com - please use this to add me to the chain. Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

Hi! I graduated from Princeton High School last year, and will be attending Harvard University in the fall after my gap year. I have absolutely no experience with debate (I did mock trial and Model UN). I’m a lay judge, and this is my first time judging a tournament.

Don’t overuse special debate lingo- I have limited knowledge and won’t understand everything.

No spreading! I need to understand what you’re saying to judge it.

I don’t understand K Affs or theory so run at your own risk.

Be a decent human being.

I like clear and organized arguments, and value the reasons why something is important more so than quantity of facts.

My email is angelinachen03@gmail.com. Please contact me if you have any questions!

NEW FOR HSTII: This is my first time judging Parli -- please err on the side of over-explanation. My background is in LD & CX, so I know how to flow and adjudicate technical debate, but am still new to the norms of Parli. The information below is intended for LD, but some of it may be applicable.

Short: I'm familiar with and love judging creative performance and K debates but it's on you to explain your theory of power and methodology. I would much rather debaters read what they're most comfortable with >>> hearing Ks being poorly executed. If you must read T or theory, make your arguments smart and original. Try and have fun debating!!!

I'm a first-year out but have also been taking a long hiatus from debate. I have not thought about this activity in over a year so start slow and go up to 75% of your top speed. I'll call SLOW/CLEAR/LOUD without penalty but will dock speaks if you don't do so. At that point, anything I don't flow is on you.

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

Quick Prefs:

Identity Ks - 1

Non-T & Performance - 1

Soft Left Ks - 1

Policy/LARP - 2/3

Pomo Ks - 3/4

T & Theory - 4

Tricks - Strike

About Me: Hi, I'm Annie! I use she/her pronouns and I debated LD for Harrison from 2019-22. I qualled to TOC, had a few round-robin invites, championed a finals-bid and taught a session at VBI LA last summer. I'm currently a pre-law student debating for Columbia, but am not heavily involved.

Many of my ideological opinions on debate and paradigm are most heavily influenced by: Chetan Hertzig, Ava Zinman, Elijah Smith and Chris Randall. If you don't want to read my paradigm, you can just debate like you would in front of one of the people I listed and you'll probably be fine.

General

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

- Explain everything assuming I know nothing about it. I am familiar with certain areas of East-Asian, Indigenous, and Black scholarship, but within those literature bases there is still so much for us to all learn. You must do the work to explain your theory of power! I will not fill in gaps just because you're reading something fairly common on the circuit.

- My favorite positions to judge: idpol Ks, performance and high quality counterplans. THAT BEING SAID,,,,,,, I will judge anything and want you to read what you feel most comfortable with.

- I abhor implicit clash and will not make unprompted cross-applications for you. The 2NR explanation on the K must be CLEAR.

- Argument quality >>> argument quantity. All arguments need a warrant. (There seems to be some confusion about what qualifies as a warrant. For example “presume aff because 67463 time skew” is NOT a warrant.)

- Don't date your cards unless the date is relevant to the content (e.g. for politics DAs, yes; for phil NCs, no)

- Don’t say it’s evidence ethics unless you’re actually stopping the debate and staking the round on it

- I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or bigotry of any kind. L 0.

Procedurals

- Slowing or clearing your opponent is fine

- Flex prep is fine but it should be only/majority clarification questions

- Signpost or I will be sad :(

- Disclose or make yourself accessible/engageable if you have a reason not to

- Go slow on interps

- Look up because I’m pretty expressive

My advice to win in front of me

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

- Talk about something that matters

- 3 offs or less. 4+ offs is too much for each one to be sufficiently developed IMO

- Be the debater you wish you were debating! Don't avoid questions or purposefully waste time in CX (there are exceptions if your opponent deserves some sass, but don't overdo it)

Things I'll reward with higher speaks

- Kindness

- Humor and energy! Make the round fun!

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

- Not spreading if your opponent isn’t

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

- Reading high quality cards

I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.cHere are some guidelines for success:

1) Please speak clearly; I can only vote for an argument I thoroughly understand and is well supported. Please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible.

2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

5). Confidence, Presentation and Clarity of speech is half the game. Present yourself clean and neat; conduct yourself calm and collected.

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two novice debaters.

I am relatively new to judging and only started judging LD this school year. I am still learning the ropes so I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

TL;DR:

Don’t go too fast (to clarify, don't go much faster than 350 wpm); I won’t be able to understand or flow you. Email: arjun_k_chopra@brown.edu.

Hi my name is Arjun, I am a student at Brown University. I debated for Blair Academy in High School. I was moderately successful in HSLD, but that should not influence your decision to pref me. I quit debate senior year, so if you are to take anything from my paradigm, it's that I don’t take debate all that seriously. I have not been involved on the circuit since 2019, so circuit norms and dynamics are likely to elude me.

Quick Prefs:

K/Performance - 1

Phil - 2/3

LARP - 3

Theory/Tricks - 4/5

The rest of this paradigm is broken down into my thoughts on various categories of debates I expect to see.

K v. K (I include most performance within this umbrella):

I love the K, especially if it centers literature I care about/am knowledgeable on. That being said, the fundamental issue I have with most debaters is that they don’t explain anything. You must define every buzzword, philosophical idea, and term-of-art you use. In K v. K debates, I will probably end up voting for the debater who explains their theory of power the best and gives me substantive and rigorous warrants as to why I should believe in their theory of power.

Where debaters will lose the round and speaks quickly is if you either 1) don’t understand your literature or 2) understand your literature, but refuse to explain it clearly and without buzzwords (this applies even if I know what you’re talking about). The benefit to preffing me as a K or performance debater is that I will be able to evaluate your arguments well; the issue with preffing me as a K or performance debater is that I almost certainly know your literature better than you do… and if you try and BS your way through a critique you don’t understand, you will almost certainly make me very sad.

A note for performance debaters: I will treat your arguments (regardless of their form or style) the same as any other arguments. You still need to explain your claims with warrants. Be sure to explain really clearly what your warrants are in the 1AR/2AR or 2NR.

In general, regardless of whether you are a Pomo or Identity debater, you should aspire to debate like Quinn Hughes. Slow down in late speeches, and explain yourself in plain language.

Clash of Civs:

I’m not a K hack, but I know every argument in your framework file and most of them are terrible, and the arguments that are actually good need to be less blippy. I evaluate clash of civs debates on the flow, please make my life easy for me by doing substantive weighing with actual explanation and warrants.

If you are reading framework or T, PLEASE slow down and make a few good arguments instead of many badly developed ones. Stop wasting your time reading a K you know you won’t go for, it waters down the potency of your framework arguments and makes me very sad. If you can provide me with rigorous warrants on framework, you will likely get really high speaks and win.

If you are performing/reading the K against T/FW, please explain WHY I should cross apply your arguments? Why does the case turn T/FW? Why do you get to weigh case? Etc. You should not be making a million different arguments and cross applications in the 1AR; a good explanation of your aff and a good explanation of the major arguments that outweigh framework are all that is needed. If your opponent is reading T, explain either why you meet their interpretation or why I shouldn’t care about their interpretation. Break things down for me and make my life simple.

LARP aka Policy-style debate:

I can very much evaluate these debates, I just will probably find them boring. Winning these debates comes down to the strength of link chains and good weighing. Nuclear war will very obviously not happen, so when you read a disad culminating in a nuke war impact, I will be a little sad.

So how do you succeed at reading policy-style arguments? Use fewer pieces of CREDIBLE evidence which you have cut well. If I can find unhighlighted portions of cards that contradict your arguments, you are in for a tough round. Link your arguments to credible impacts that are realistic. Nuke war is not realistic, economic turmoil is realistic. Finally, weigh your arguments in a sensible manner. Explain why your impact’s scale is greater than your opponents, but also explain why I should care. Do not just tell me economic crashes cause poverty; explain to me how millions of elderly people will no longer have homes or retirement savings if the economy was to crash.

Tricks/Theory (I include frivolous T here):

It’s not that I don’t like your arguments or that I will hack against you. I find tricks/theory pretty fun, but, as a debater I could never flow them, so as a judge I almost surely will not be able to flow your arguments. If I cannot flow your arguments, I will be upset because there will be gaps in my flow (rly just messing up the whole aesthetic of my flow SMH). Let me make it clear, I don't backflow.

Phil:

Phil in debate ultimately draws from a literature base that is not very different from other literature bases which would be classified as K literature, but for some reason is treated differently. If you approach phil like a K, then you will be fine. As I said before, I don’t care what style or form you use, I will understand it. The issue that I find with most ‘phil’ I see in debate is that your syllogisms are impossible to understand without a background in the literature and few debaters ever actually explain their buzzwords properly. As such, voting on phil, just like tricks, would rely on me voting on arguments I don’t understand and were never explained properly.

If you can treat your ‘phil’ authors and arguments with the respect they deserve, explaining them in simple terms and defining your buzzwords, you can win my ballot. I know that neither your arguments nor your syllogisms are all that difficult to understand or explain. So, from my perspective, not explaining your argument either in CX or in a rebuttal speech very clearly means you either don’t understand your argument.

Misc things:

If you are using one, have an email chain set up before the round starts. This means if the start time is 9 AM, the 1AC needs to be in my inbox at 9 AM. You don’t need to use an email chain (you can read off paper, have your speeches memorized, I don’t care), but if you are sending evidence to your opponent, I need to have it, and if you are sending anything to me, your opponent needs to be CC’ed. If you have carded evidence, you need to be able to provide it to me or your opponent by the time your speech is done. These are my rules, they supersede any theory arguments made in-round.

If you are going too fast for me or are too unclear, I will call slow/clear as many times as I can, if you aren’t going to slow down/become more clear for me, I just won't be able to flow you.

How not to get low speaks:

Please have good basic debate hygiene (which includes: having the email chain set up/sent pre-round, being efficient with flashing, not stealing prep, being clear, and don't -for the love of god- keep speaking despite your timer obviously going off in the background).

Don't make bad arguments which everyone in the room knows are simply false. Making good arguments which are probably true and weighing multiple sets of true arguments against one another will make me very very happy.

Doing any of the following things: having poorly formatted cards, being mean for no good reason, being racist/etc., being unclear, not slowing down, spreading against a novice, and post-rounding me.

How to get high speaks:

Be kind. Be funny. "Leave debate better than you found it" - Zinman 2k22.

Read good arguments which you actually believe (if you would be proud to turn your case into an academic article for publication, you should be good).

Making it easy for me to flow (signposting, slowing down on tags and in general, etc.).

If your round is in the morning, bring me coffee <3

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK ME

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

(Just for Harvard: this pool is massive and there are so many schools where this is the first tourney they've competed at, IF YOU READ 1AC DISCLO OR ANY DISCLO AGAINST FIRST TIME DEBATERS I will drop you. That is seriously the most exclusionary practice ever and I am so tired of seeing it)

Hi a lot of you already know me but I'm Amanda, FSU grad. Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I currently am the assistant coach for Columbus High School in Miami, FL. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I've coached the FFL State Champion (2x), TOC qualled debater (they've done more but Im lazy). I also coach a highly competitive Public Forum team (they definitely are sm better then some of the stuff I hear in LD and sometimes I wish I judged more there).

QUICK hack sheet:

Traditional: 1/2 (just know that tech people are preffing depending on the list below)

K: 1

LARP <3: 1

Theory: 4

Tricks: 5 ( i strongly urge you to not read these in front of me, definitely am tired of being the subject of a discord chat after someone loses a round because they didn't read my paradigm)

Phil: 2

Performance:2/3 (just add trigger warning if necessary! Im good with anything)

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, and Crawford Leavoy.

______________________________________________________

Here is a list of things I used to get asked and now people just don't read my paradigm anymore (please at least read 1 and 6):

1. I've debate plenty of times on the national circuit, I've seen it during its highs and lows. PLEASE MAKE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE!

2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however, I need a clear articulation on how to do so.

3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it.

4. There is a difference between being witty and being arrogant. ZERO tolerance for disrespect in debate.

5. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person so don't say "it says". Please don't say "The judge believes x,y,and z."- you have no clue what Im thinking. Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being hella exclusionary) :)

6. I STRONGLY hate 1AC disclo. It is the one thing that will absolutely send me into a spiral if I hear that round one. The 1NC is a reactive strat, for the love of god don't complain if this is an issue of someone didn't properly disclo round reports. Seriously, the only thing we cared about when I debated was past 2NR's so can we just please learn how to actually debate. xoxoxo your friendly K judge.

Tolerance Levels:

Traditional- I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. A good friend of mine, Fiona Barry, was a phenomenal trad debater. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args.

LARP- I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh.

K's- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :))

Phil- I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Theory- I used to say theory debate was okay as I started to judge it more. I lied. Don't make this round a headache for me to adjudicate. I dislike when 5 shells are read with stat skew standards then is followed by a six page card dump on the aff flow. MAKE THIS EASY FOR ME. I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. By now I've realized that most kids sigh when they get me as a judge and they predominantly read theory, as long as you don't make it messy then I'll be fine lol. This is just a question of adapting, if you can't do that then work on it.

Tricks- This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly. I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance- I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.

I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. IMO you should be 15 mins early to your round

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!

I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

Current Topic (LD - Borders/PF- RTW)

• I have cut multiple cards on them.
• I am pretty familiar with them - run whatever.
• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong link. Needs to have all components and please make clear the status of your counterplan in your constructive. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose - I do not want to vote on disclosure theory (esp round report) - so idk only run disclosure theory that makes sense.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think new affs are good - I need like SUPER proven abuse to vote on new affs bad.

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan.

Special Note on Cap K's

It is an uphill battle with me on the Cap K tbh. You can read it watch what you say. I have voted on lots of cap Ks before so its not impossible to get my ballot. I can not stand when you claim a country has successfully converted to communism when it has not in reality. I do think some countries have but I have had competitors claim Spain is a communist nation. Also when referring to failures of communism do not just say "South America" or "The Caribbean" . Further, do not conflate people who had to flee say Cuba to "All just slave owners" that is just not historically inaccurate and discrediting of the reality. TLDR: You can read it but you best be read up on communism and don't you dare try to say Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD.

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

I am a poli sci major and currently work on a campaign. I know politics so do not say something dumb that makes no sense.

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does!

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you well. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ NATO topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Hi I'm Jeremiah! You can always reach me on messenger!

Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com ~~and~~ summitdebatedocs@gmail.com

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.4 speak for good bladee references

Experience

4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022

4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory

1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs

Now I debate Policy in College at Binghamton University & mainly go for the K (Baudrillard & Pomo Goo on the aff | a variety of authors on the neg)

TLDR:

Will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe -- I hated losing in highschool just cuz i read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time

yes open cross & flex prep

1-- theory/T, larp, K negs, interesting tricks

2-- K affs/phil

3-- Generic boring bad tricks

Harvard 23 updates

Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs infinitely more. Also Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks.

Clash Debates: I am better for the neg in clash debates but very persuaded by top level framing in these rounds. Impact turning T is very persuasive -- on a truth level I think T is wrong but on a tech level I am often unimpressed by K debaters.

% weighing: unwarranted % weighing will cap your speaks

Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Non-negotiables

Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.

I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)

One Winner / One Loser

gut check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible

clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

LD

My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo

I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs (https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda22/Binghamton/CoGu)

I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less

I never did trad LD

I'm good for 30 speaks stuff. Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?

I love a good case debate :)

Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

PF

I debated this for 4 years of HS, but honestly I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now so

Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)

I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.

1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should

My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well I will love you

Policy

All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny

I debate policy in college

One strong opinion I have is good case debate >> lots of off

they / he

add to chain backslash309@gmail.com

time yourself

Debated policy on education, immigration, arm sales, did LD 2019-2021. Doing policy for the University of Houston on the antitrust topic and now legal personhood.

Anderson '21, Houston '25

random notes

don't be racist or homophobic, etc.

Update for Foster / 22-23:

---Please send documents. It can be e-mail, speechdrop, or even the classic flashdrive, whatever works for you. Cards matter, and I want to be able to look at them if it comes down to it.

---Read whatever you want. At the end of the day I am a circuit judge and will evaluate the round according to the line by line.

LD top-level:

I'll vote on anything, but speaker points are up to me.

Policy & K debates are my favorite, but I will vote on tricks, phil, theory, dumb Ks, anything. If your 2NR/2AR is most likely going for any "LARP" argument or substantive K then I will be happy, but I'm even happier when you read what you want and have fun.

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Quality comparison between your evidence and theirs as well as weighing make the round a lot better.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue".

I'm not treating independent voters as automatically DTD, CI, etc. If one side has not done something that seems to immediately be a threat to the debaters safety/ability to debate, you will have to flesh this stuff out for me. New warrants in 2ARs / 2NRs require intervention on my part, which I'm not going to do.

In the absence of any argument against these, I assume the consequences of the plan matter, no RVIs, competing interps, and no judgekick. These are very easy assumptions to change, but an argument has to be on the flow in order for me to do so.

Unverbatimized docs, PDFs, and/or google docs, WILL hurt your speaks.

Read as much off as you want, spread as fast as you want, but BE FLOWABLE. You should do speed drills and clarity drills.

AFF:

Plans are great. So are not-plans. Do whatever you want.

Collapse. If 2 advantages / "contentions" find their way into your 2ar, you're probably shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm familiar with a lot of K literature so I'm probably fine with whatever K-AFFs you want to read. Literally read anything you want.

NEG:

Go for what you're comfortable with. Please collapse.

For counterplans, if you want me to judge-kick (adopt the status quo as an option if the CP vs Case fails) you have to say it. Same applies with an alt.

I default to presumption affirms when the 2NR extends an alt/CP, as there is a new world that has been introduced that is a greater shift from the status quo than the plan. But please don't make me vote on presumption.

Process and Agent CPs are great. I think Rider DA's are fun. I can also be convinced by theory args against these things.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything in the LD paradigm applies. I like to consider myself a "clash judge" and would be fine voting either way in a policy vs K or a fw vs K aff debate. I lean more negative in K AFF debates the less the aff relates to the topic - generic critiques of debate are always worse than nuanced criticisms of debating about the topic.

I am new to debate and taking notes of a debate. I tend to be more of a visual person, so don't speak too quickly. Set up your arguments clearly before getting into the details. If the opponent concedes a point, help me catch it.

I prefer logic and reasoning. While I am fine with numbers and statistics, I also believe in the old saying that there are "[l]ies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics certainly can be useful, but the quality of the statistic is important as is when it is used.

I prefer people to not interrupt each other too much.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

This is my third year debating in college policy, mostly as a 2N but also with 2A experience. I debated primarily local LD in high school with some national circuit experience my senior year, taught at VBI & NSD, and am now an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach independent LDers.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). Everything below this is just a preference so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth - so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util, not util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytic args.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum is probably true.

Theory

Competition should determine counterplan legitimacy. I lean neg on nearly every question of CP theory but also think judges are too interventionist on theory.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not.

K

I’m worse for Ks than most judges. The largest issue comes down to uniqueness for me - when there's an alt that solves the case in lieu of a strong framework push, case outweighs and the perm double bind become almost unbeatable. This leaves FW as the K's main option for generating UQ - but a FW interp that precludes the aff from weighing the case is difficult to justify (since it's probably cheating) and the aff’s “extinction outweighs” claims should still matter underneath it since the consequences of the plan are part of its justifications.

That said, my voting record is close to 50/50 in these debates because affs tend to spend too much time on link defense and ignore the obvious flaws with the structure of the K - winning 2ARs should go for case outweighs plus the perm double bind/alt solvency deficits or "FW - no Ks," depending on how the K attempts to generate uniqueness. I’ve never understood how to evaluate debates under FW interps like “we get the aff and they get the K" since the impacts operate under different levels so I have no means of comparing them.

Line by line >> long overviews.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

I've always been on the neg side of this debate. I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game (one of my stronger biases), but will vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

Procedural fairness is the best impact but clash is easier to explain both as an independent impact and turns case arg. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me - you’ll be happier with my decision if you just go for FW.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. My threshold for warrants might also be higher than the average LD judge's - I'm unlikely to vote on one sentence blips because I don't think they're complete arguments.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

krutin.devesh@gmail.com

I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why there is some opportunity cost to that change.

Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter.

1 - Most enjoy policy debates with quality research. These are my favorite types of debates.

2 - Really enjoy topicality. I think there is almost always a better violation than Nebel. Precision is still probably good.

3 - I like some kritik debates - I much prefer specific links to some portion of the aff instead of state good links packaged as having some relation to the topic. These 2NRs must draw lines from the 1AC/1AR to be persuasive.

4 - When done well, theory debates are enjoyable. I tend to think DTA is persuasive against most CP theory (except condo...) but it is up to the debaters to resolve this.

5 - I am least interested in judging arguments that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Debate is about argumentative flexibility, not individual people. Please clash and weigh.

6 - LD philosophy debate, when substantive, is very engaging. Under EM or EC, please be sure to compare offense.

7 - Clash debates are almost always interesting. I have been on both sides and would be happy to judge these.

8 - Disclosure is good, but I'm more convinced debaters should make a good effort to allow for engagement in round that meet an arbitrary threshold of disclosure (e.g. open source v full text, etc)

Thanks,

Krutin

Black kid who has championed and got top speaker at both the TOC and TFA state tournament

I debate at Harvard currently - i'm the 2A and i'm partners with the best 2N Leah Y. We got a first round to the NDT as freshman:)

Add me to email chain: zionjd@gmail.com

please have the email chain started by the time the round is scheduled to start

Update for Harvard: I basically have thought most about K affs vs T/Cap and case debate from K perspective since college so it has been a minute since I have thought about the intricacies of theory debates and what not. I would still enjoy it but you should go a bit slower and explain more than you think is necessary. I also think college debate has allowed me to be a LOT more receptive to T-Framework and case outweighs (I'll elaborate on that below). I will say - I miss the silly things from LD so don't hesitate to have fun with me in the back.

Tab Shortcuts (At this point I am fresh into judging so this is more reflective of my debate style as a competitor.

K/Performance/Non-T -1

Larp-3 (policy v k 1)

T/Theory-2

T-Framework -1

Tricks-3 (tricks v tricks-4) (identity tricks -1 if you do it right)

High Theory-2

Phil-3

Debate is antiblack, I don't just believe that but I know it. With that said, I will l evaluate any and everything as long as it is warranted and explained enough for me to understand it. The exception is anything that I feel makes the round or debate space unsafe or violent I will vote you down, including but not limited to: racism, sexism homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings etc. Pettiness and trolling can be funny and strategic but don't be mean to novices and don't be unfunny.

Non T affs & Performance I love but you should expect to be well prepared for T-framework and generic responses

K debate do your thing, I really like a good framework section of the debate and I expect you to win your theory of power. Have TONS of thoughts but honestly just ask for questions so I don't rant here.

Tricks and friv theory is funny but if you read it against a performance aff or id pol position I hope you get clowned. If you extempt things during these online debates it is not my fault if I miss it. I reserve the right to gut check if you lack warrants or I don't understand your argument after the round.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

T-Framework: You need a terminal impact, you need a response to case, you need to explain why clash or fairness has an end goal that the aff framework should care about. If you just read blocks and or do not touch case you will almost certainly lose.

Plan vs Ks - To vote aff, I like a good framework or weigh the case section of the debate. Tell me why the model and process of discussing the aff AND weighing it is good and valuable not just in an abstract but in context of the 1n K. Links are a thing, respond to them. Love alt disads. Perms without a net benefit are a waste of time. Respond to the theory of power or you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Policy (larp v larp) - 2nr/2ar I need a lot of judge instruction because I am not gonna act like I havent been removed from this type of debate for basically all of highschool

Misc:

- compiling a doc is prep but waiting for a marked doc or asking what wasn't ready is not prep and you can do it before cx

For High Speaks

- be clear and take into account audio situations with online debate

- be strategic and collapse strategically

- make the round entertaining

- If you are Black

Other things that will get you a hot L or tanked speaks 1. if you are mean to less experienced debaters. 2. if you are stealing prep. 3. if you manipulate evidence or clip. 4. if you are not Black and read afropess. 5. if you mispronoun your opponent

I rushed through this so if there is anything you are still curious or confused about after reading then just ask me before round.

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I coached actively from 2016-2021, but have done almost no meaningful coaching or judging since then. Explain jargon, slow down, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is a slightly older + longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

General

Email: Ewingtonlouis@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

I debated LD for four years in HS at North Mecklenburg HS in North Carolina. Currently studying Philosophy and German at Tufts University. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round and I will be happy to clarify :)

Prefs and Stuff

Traditional Debate - 3
Phil - 1. If you don't run phil I won't count it against you or anything but you def should!!! Listening to rounds focusing on policy, and contentions about the GDP decreasing 0.0000001% leading to nuke war gets really boring. I think it ignores what makes LD a unique and diverse format of debate, and is a symptom of a trend of LD just turning more and more into spicy Policy/PF debate.
Ks - 2, most familiar with Cap Ks
Theory - 4
Tricks - No.

Author's I'm most familiar with: Althusser, Heidegger, Marx and Engels, Laozi, Mozi/the Mohists, and Kongzi (Confucius).

Frameworks and all that Jazz

- The framework is the primary point of contention within a round. It frames the scope and perspective of your case, and is incredibly important to guiding my decision. E.g. what may be the moral option under util may not be under a deontological framework, because the question of what is "moral" is evaluated differently between the two. So, while you may convince me that your impact outweighs your opponent in a round, that doesn't matter if your opponent won the framework debate, and managed to convince me that consequentialism isn't an adequate way to evaluate a moral decision. In short, tell me what value framework guides my decision, then tell me how your case fulfills that obligation.

- I prefer unique frameworks. Saying "my value is morality and the criterion is maximizing wellbeing/util/consequentialism, or some variation thereof gets boring very fast and makes for a less dynamic, more predictable, and very generic debate. Don't be afraid to introduce an interesting framework that breaks from this monotony. In essence, please do not neglect the value debate.

- Write my ballot for me. Tell me why exactly I am voting for you and extend your case accordingly. I will not be extending anything on the flow that you don't do the work of explaining yourself.

- Warrant your framework. Don't just tell me what your value and criterion are. Tell me WHY they are what they are, i.e how it's relevant to the resolution. This goes for any observations, definitions, burdens, etc. that you may have in your case as well.

- When you do warrant your framework, make sure it is not circular! "Judge prefer util because it's the only framework that can properly maximize pleasure/minimize pain." Like yeah, obviously that's what utilitarianism does. but tell me why that matters in the first place!

- Generally speaking, I don't love Util (or its many variations) at all. However, since so many folks run it, I think it's important to mention that when looking at any consequentialist framework I will take some things into consideration:

1. Have a clear impact. I have run into cases before which simply don't explain the actual consequences of negating/affirming the resolution, despite having a consequentialist value framework. When running a framework that evaluates morality based off of the consequences of an action, you can imagine why this may be an issue. This makes it very hard to see how I as the judge am meant to make the supposedly "moral" choice when its consequentialist moral qualifications are opaque. In essence, make your impacts clear and explicit.

2. Stemming off of this, once you've hopefully ascertained that you as a consequentialist have impacts, weigh them! It isn't enough just to tell me how bad x or y impact is in your rebuttal. You need to do the heavy lifting of contrasting these impacts with those of your opponent.

Speaking

- I'm fine with speaking relatively fast, but I am not familiar with spreading. So, if you spread I will have a very hard time understanding you. If I cannot understand you, writing a decision in your favor will be difficult.

- Signpost.

- Crystalize.

- I am more than fine with being brazen in rounds, but don't take this too far. I.e. you can be sassy, but don't be mean or hurtful to your opponent.

- I think it's a futile task to try and reduce speaker points down to an exact science. No, I cannot tell you the exact boundary between what determines 29 and 28 speaker points, and I frankly am not sure anyone truthfully can. Coming from a point of candor, the most exact answer I can give on how I determine speaks will be If you speak well, you're likely to get higher speaks, and if you speak poorly you're likely to get lower speaks. The only exception to this is being unnecessarily rude, mean, or belligerent to your opponent or me, which will result in 20 speaker points.

Flow

- I will base my decision off of the flow, so I will not be voting based off of which side "spoke better." I am judging debate after all, so the flow is the crux of my decision.

- Tech > Truth. However, this doesn't mean you can run completely bonkers and logically invalid arguments. I.e. make sure that if I assume the premises of your argument, there is no possible condition in which the conclusion can be false. In essence, make sure your argument actually follows the structure of, you know, an argument.

- I prefer two good, well warranted and linked contentions as opposed to four sloppy and small contentions. I will not be impressed if you have four contentions, so please take the time to work on good, quality contentions.

- I don't flow cross. However, I will still pay attention and look to how your cx engages with the flow.

Other Stuff

- Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, etc. This will result in a loss.

- If you run some kind of Heidegger arg that goes on a tirade against Util and calculative ways of thinking, making use of notions of Ge-stell, Gelassenheit, etc. I'll give you an extra .5 speaker points because that would be funny (and for the most part correct).

As an addendum, if you manage to run this same argument making use of Laozi/a Taoist approach (which is very possible, considering how much Heidegger is influenced by Chinese philosophy), I'll give you an extra speaker point. When people do run phil it's almost always western phil, which neglects the wealth of philosophy to be found from across the world that doesn't trace down to a strictly platonic root (Kant and his personal legacy of racism is very responsible for this), so running someone like Laozi in place of Heidegger would be good practice in expanding your horizons.

- Lastly, this paradigm is subject to subtractions, additions, and any/all change in general. If there are questions about it you may have, feel free to ask me! I can clear it up before and after the round, and add on to this paradigm for the future!

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well:http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html.tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

I will be sad if you speak fast.

My name is Angel Feliciano. I am excited to see what the students will be debating about. I hope to gain knowledge from the topics selected. I am interested in facts provided by the debaters and how and when they are presented.

For the email chain and any contact you need - edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

About me:

I competed as a policy and congressional debater for three years in high school, and am currently attending Northeastern University as a Political Science and International Affairs major.

Also yes, I would like to be included on the email chain: niarod2703@gmail.com

My Judging style:

I am fairly new to judging, and I am what many would consider a tabula rasa (TABS) judge. What this means is that I come into a round with no prior assumption on what to vote on. In essence, I will vote on anything as long as it is properly explained and elaborated.

Although I have a background in policy debate, I am unfamiliar with Lincoln Douglas, please be considerate of that as you frame the round, if I do not understand your argument due to lack of a well-founded explanation, I will not take it into consideration.

I will not tolerate any problematic arguments for the sake of the ballot, please think before you speak. This includes but is not limited to racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc.

Cross ex: I will not flow cross ex: but I do expect to see points made during cross addressed in speeches, this will add to the validity of your argument, and could essentially make or break your case

Speed: I believe the sport of debate is more so a test of how well one can frame and extend arguments, not who can talk the fastest. With that being said, I am fairly comfortable with speed, but if it is not clear, I will ask you to enunciate. If I have to ask more than three times, I will not flow what I do not understand

Framing: I am a huge fan of moral and philosophical theories, and would love to see them incorporated in the round, however, if it becomes too “meta” or wonky, I will no longer see it as a benefit to your case.

Time: it is up to you to keep track of your own time, I will not have my timer out. If issues arise with the legitimacy of a competitor's time, I will get involved and track time for the remainder of the round.

Please be respectful and considerate of your opponents, if any harsh or problematic attacks are made I will significantly lower your speaks.

Above all, have fun and enjoy the round! This activity is meant to expand your skill sets, do not ruin it by being excessively tense!

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

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

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

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

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

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

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

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

Hi I'm Sebastian :D! I debated for NSU University school in LD and qualified to the TOC 3 times.

Email: frazierbat101@gmail.com

General: Tech>Truth. I'll vote for anything given there's at least some sort of warrant for it. My familiarity is primarily with phil and theory debate but I also read tricks, Ks, and policy arguments throughout my career.

Defaults: These sections are incredibly silly but just in case they are needed they are as follows.

Truth testing if no other ROB is read

2NR theory is legit on new 1AR arguments but not on AC arguments

Competing interps, No RVIs, DTA, and a Norm Setting model on theory and T.

Specifics:

Theory: One of my favorite styles of debate. Good theory includes decent coverage and clash on paradigm issues when strategic (including solid RVI arguments) and effective weighing between shells.

Notes: 1) converse/inverse aren't counterinterps and neither is "ill defend the violation" 2) X side is harder arguments are not good arguments 3) "Frivolous theory" is not some objective concept that defines exact boundaries for what is acceptable and isn't. Ill evaluate any shell but things like shoes theory obviously require a lower threshold for responses 4) I prefer in-depth standard weighing to categorical arguments like "meta-theory first" or "aff theory first". You can read both but direct clash is much more interesting.

T: To be honest, T is just theory with semantics/precision. I like unique grammatical interps a lot as well as classic T shells like Nebel. In terms of framework I do think its preferable to read an aff with some relation to/defense of the topic but if you don't thats cool. One thing I'd love to see is actual clash between a CI on framework and the interp as opposed to solely going for impact turns.

Tricks: To be honest I'm not a huge fan of blipstorm tricks rounds. Of course I'll still vote on them but it is so easy to make tricks debates messy, generic and boring. I'd much prefer a really solid and in depth NIB that you're ready to defend than spamming out 50 arguments you don't think your opponent can get through. If you read unique tricks and/or tricky strategies I'll be happy. The only argument I especially despise in this category is eval after x speech arguments. I don't understand how they practically work and so going for them will require actual explanation of what that means for the round.

Phil: Probably my favorite style of debate because it becomes the most interesting. Effective weighing and cross-applications can turn good framework rounds into great ones and well warranted syllogisms are simply the best.

- Small little aside: act hedonistic utilitarianism is a criminally un-strategic framework. Please defend a more robust and modern conception of consequentialism. Please.

Policy: Personally, I did this style the least but I think good policy rounds can be super interesting. Smart CP vs. Plan debates are among my favorites and I think impact turn debates can be really fun. Err on over-explaining counter-plan theory that isn't condo or process arguments as I am not too familiar. 

Ks: I really enjoy K debates and am somewhat familiar with them. I'm less familiar with K v K debates (unless one of them is cap) but am familiar with a lot of K literature. One note is it seems many K debaters have low standards for evidence and for the amount of warranting needed to explain why certain practices are bad. As a side not, I don't like arguments that place value/disvalue on debaters race/gender/ethnicity etc. but I suppose if its completely conceded I'd vote on it.

Evidence Ethics: I won't evaluate someone staking the round. If someone truly violated evidence ethics, you should have no problem beating them in a theory debate. I think staking is intervention so I will not vote for you if you do it, even if the violation is correct.

I am predisposed to think that you:

1. are smart
2. have worked hard to research and understand the topic
3. have prepared your arguments
4. deserve a fair shake

You will do well if:

1. you present your views clearly
2. you stay composed
3. your logical construct is persuasive
4. you have a good measure of eye contact
5. you are kind

All the very Best!

Hi -I am a first-time parent judge for LD. I love philosophy, logic, and rational thinking. Although I have no experience judging debates, I can catch an intelligent argument and rebuttal when provided with convincing evidence. So really think hard on your topic and contention and provide cogent arguments.

My expectations for debaters:

--- Compose yourself before the debate that will help in presenting cogent arguments

--- Speak clearly and calmly at a slow/medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case. You can also mention the number of evidences/arguments/contention you will provide ahead of time so there is more clarity during the debate

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

--- Think deeply before and during the session and enjoy the brain nourishment it provides????

--- Good Luck

email: sangitagandhi@ymail.com

Last significant update - December 2022

Docs: speechdrop.net

Graduated in 2020. LD TOC qual 2x (cleared junior year) + 13 bids. Coaching actively in 2022-23 for the DebateDrills Club Team and familiar with topics/ arguments - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

I probably do not want to be judging. Speaks boost for taking less prep, sitting down early if you've won, and generally concluding the debate faster.

I read policy args + T/theory (in LD). I am familiar with but don't particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K. I will limit the insertion of my preferences absent an annoying or poorly resolved debate. The remnants of what used to be a more detailed paradigm are below.

Debate is a competitive game, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/suffering good (spark and wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ physical location (except disclosure screenshots)

---Identity-based arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: f/ e are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks vs phil affs more than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Speaks probably getting tanked.

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping at least 3-5+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

Hi my name is Christian (he/him) and I am a sophomore on the Harvard CX debate team and did CX debate in high school as well.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN -cagines21@gmail.com

my experiences

I am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. The kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however, I've encountered most of the K lit base positions and am willing to evaluate them. Overall, just be sure to explain everything well.

Overview of Args

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework )

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions.

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc -all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

things i like to see/good speaks!

1 - collapsing !!

2 - GOOD 2nrs on framework

3 -make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun!

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive! try not to be rude, as we have been having trouble with it.

Update: if you are a clear spreader (i.e. if I can actually understand your spreading in the highlighted text of your cards) I will boost speaks by 0.1-0.3. People are way too unclear, debate is a communicative event.

Email: andrewgong03@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Andrew, but people also call me gongo. I did LD at Harvard-Westlake, got 18 career bids, and reached finals of the TOC. I graduated in 2021.

Top level:

1. As a senior, I read only big-stick policy positions. This should tell you what types of debates I'm most comfortable judging, but it shouldn't dissuade you from reading your favorite args (exception: tricks).

2. Clarity is very important to me. No, I will not flow from the speech doc, so if I can't hear you, I'll stop flowing and yell clear until you slow down.

3. Online debate - keep a local recording in case you cut out. Keeping your camera on would be ideal, but it's not a requirement.

Non-T Affs:

I'm probably 60/40 biased in favor of T framework against non-T affs. Arguments like truth testing make intuitive sense to me.

I like education more than fairness, but both are fine.

I went for the cap K against non-T affs a lot as well. It's also a good option.

Ks:

I like these more than my argumentative history would imply. I think good K debates are a lot of fun to watch and judge. I've read a lot of Deleuze, a little bit of Baudrillard + settler colonial literature, and I have a good grasp of most other Ks.

Good 2NRs on the K will have specific links that implicate aff solvency, and contain lots of real-world examples on all parts of the flow. Good 2ARs on the K will either have lots of link defense and disads to the alt, or go for framework + extinction outweighs.

I really like impact turns against the K. Heg good and cap good are awesome, provided you go for them correctly.

Arguments couched entirely in terms of you or your opponent's personal identity/out-of-round actions are probably bad.

CP/DA:

I'm sympathetic to 1AR theory and very lenient in competition debates against cheesy process counterplans. However, 1AR theory debates are generally late breaking and annoying - I'll hold the line against 2AR explosions of 1AR blips, especially when there's not much in-round abuse (1 condo/1 pic).

I read ev, good ev is important.

T/theory:

I'm not the best at evaluating either of these arguments - as a debater, I rarely went for either except as last-ditch efforts. This isn't to say that I don't want to vote on them, but I do prefer substantive debates.

I'm definitely better for T than theory. Nebel T is probably wrong, but I'll vote on it (reluctantly) if you win it.

I'll default competing interps, but I'm very persuaded by in-round abuse claims and reasonability. This also means I don't like nonsense theory arguments (e.g. non-resolutional spec shells, shoes theory).

Don't go for an RVI unless you have literally no other choice lol

Philosophy:

Probably biased towards util. Permissibility and presumption triggers, including calculation/aggregation impossible, are ridiculous to me, but I'll vote on them if conceded.

If your opponent reads a nonsense contention, concede their framework and go for turns!

I went for the race/colorblindness K against phil a lot, and I like the argument.

Tricks:

I'll be very sad voting on conceded 1-line blips. The worse an argument is, the lower your bar for answering it. And if I don't understand your argument in the speech it was presented, I'll give your opponent leeway in terms of new answers in the final rebuttal speech.

I’m a third-year undergraduate student at Princeton University, studying history and education, with plans to become a high school social studies and / or mathematics teacher. In addition to my history coursework, I have a background in economics, politics, and a bit of modern philosophy.

Email: igradl@princeton.edu or igradl3@gmail.com

General:

1) I'm a lay judge. This is also my first time judging a debate competition.

2) Clarity of your argument and strong support for the arguments you make through good, clear, and connected evidence are most important to me. The number of different arguments you make doesn’t necessarily make for the strongest case.

3) On that note, no spreading please – it’s really important that I can understand your arguments, how you construct them, and how they all connect to one another. I can’t do that if you’re reading too quickly, or if you are not clear.

Keep in mind as you compete, that your integrity and character matter a lot more than whether you win or lose a debate. So: be respectful, courteous, and kind to your opponent(s) and judges; be honest when you debate; and see the debate first and foremost as an opportunity to improve the way YOU build arguments and speak in public.

Good luck debating!

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

.

hi! i'm lily :) lilia.guiz@gmail.com they/she

syosset '22 - did circuit ld for ~year and taught at tdc

bing '26 - 2n in policy + ndt qualled. i study math and philosophy.

i am fine adjudicating pretty much any args u feel like going for in front of me, i find explanation/execution far more important than style choice. for full disclosure i primarily topical k affs and ks/phil ncs in hs, but was also a t/friv theory/da 2nr enjoyer. im more flex in college

i've become somewhat policypilled so explanation is REALLY important for me. do not fear, i'm still an ld judge at heart and am fine with all the shenanigans here, but i need a bit of depth and clear explanations even for arguments u might think are intuitive. i've read and am willing to vote on stuff like condo logic and dense pomo but it has to be explained well and coherently (examples help) or i will just tell u in the rfd i didn't get it

more stuff

[1] reading graphic descriptions of sensitive events like assault/suicide will lead me to stopping the round, i really do not care if there's a trigger warning or not. otherwise i think trigger warnings are helpful and will be tab on tw theory

i have yet to see one lder that actually has good practices regarding semi-sensitive content. publicly asking right before the 1ac (or during ur speech/cx) does almost nothing in terms of allowing survivors to back out. all of the following topics (and more) warrant an opportunity for both the panel and ur opponent to comfortably back out: suicide/self-harm/disordered eating/assault/abuse/violence against a specific group/pedophilia - please be smart students and gut check these things :)

[2] cps/k alts: default to no judge kick but am willing to. imho cps tend to overestimate how competitive they are with the aff, and affs underestimate how competitive k alts are. alt solves case =/= floating pik

[3] a pet peeve of mine is incorrectly pronounced author names, mostly when western/white names get pronounced correctly but not ethnic names (at which point it becomes a micro-aggression)

[4] for full transparency here are my takes on tricks:

• not a good judge for tricks/skep v k affs. it's not that i'd never vote on it, but so far i haven't + almost any other strategy is preferable. well executed phil nc like kant or theory will make me happy against these affs - i generally have a slightly lower bar for tricks affs against ks, but will have trouble voting aff if you go for "colonialism doesn't matter under my index so u affirm xd" so its more contextual ig
• i do like tricky debate when it is warranted in the original speech and is well explained in the backhalf
• i like k tricks, skep triggers, paradoxes & paragraph theory
• not a fan of theory spikes, indexicals and a prioris. i usually find upper level framing persuasive against these

[5] i do not flow off the doc. it is in your best interest to slow down and prioritize clarity. this also means i get really annoyed when people ask for marked docs because it delays the round a ton and makes prep stealing too easy. if you want a marked doc of analytics you need to take your own prep time for that. if your opponent is unintelligible feel free to clear them and know i'm probably not flowing them

[6] if i have to clear u 3+ times or if u delay the round (being late, begging for marked docs, taking a while to send docs, prep stealing, going overtime in speeches, etc - i understand these things are unavoidable sometimes and i will not dock speaks if that is the case) ur speaks will be very bad

ev ethics:

• if your opponent is cheating, you should point it out and stake the round on it. this includes anything that goes against the code of conduct at most unis (so plagiarism, fabrication & falsification) & clipping
• bracketing, "they continue", dishonest disclosure, not including links and similar violations are bad practices but not stop the round issues, resolve these with procedurals within round

disclosure:

• i find o-source has been v beneficial to ld, and i like disclosure theory though i've voted against it before. i do get annoyed if it's frivolous and will probably get persuaded by reasonability if you have 1 doc or 2 round reports missing
• i'm also sympathetic to debaters that can't disclose for personal reasons (i couldn't). you should still try to disclose what you can and over dms, and if you don't, you should be prepared for the disclosure debate
• i get really annoyed when debaters misdisclose or otherwise try to tow the line. pick one side and defend it

"thoughts on 30 speaks theory" if it is funny, i will consider rounding u up to a 30, but your speaks need to be high absent the bonus for that to happen

i do not like bladee. i do not accept food/drinks from debaters.

i no longer respond to messages/emails from coaches, i also am have your kids email me instead. if you choose to watch a round that your debater is in, please sit yourself in a position where i can see there is nothing suspicious going on

Hello everyone!

My name is Timothy Gunawan and I'm a student at Duke University As an American living abroad in Indonesia, I am inexperienced in full LD-format debate and will therefore not be too knowledgeable about the specifics of the debate format. I am, however, experienced in numerous other forms of debate with extensive experience in Model United Nations, British Parliamentary Debate, and American Moot Court. As a result, my preferences are as follows:

• I will focus on the content and quality of the debate, focusing less on how well you follow the procedures of the debate and more on whether or not you actually address the question at hand.
• I tend to take fairly extensive notes and will demarcate where certain arguments end and others begin. Be ready to signpost and ensure that your arguments have a clear, cogent structure.
• While I am not particularly harsh when addressing speaking fluency, I ask that all participants ensure that they slow their pace of speaking - speed-debating / "spreading" is not something I will look kindly upon.
• I hope to see measured, nuanced, and substantive debate between both sides but I also expect sides to be serious and respectful to one another at the very minimum. Give the topic and competition the respect it deserves.
• Good luck and have fun! Looking forward to seeing what everyone has to offer (and learning more about the LD circuit at large!)

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks

- be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc

- If you are against a novice win the round then use your remaining speech time to sing an Avril Lavigne song

- making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.

- Drip

- Reference something from Scooby-Doo

Do any of these things, and you will for sure get above a 28.5

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please.

Styles of Debate -

Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.

K - Just make sure to explain it super well, as I think a well-done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true; I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.

Larp - Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.

Tricks -I read a lot of tricks but like most judges find them less interesting debates to judge. If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.

Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first and default competing interpretations.

Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.

I am a college student studying philosophy. I debated 3 years for Midtown High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Any pronouns are fine. Make the round fun. You can contact me for any questions. (peterchaynes03@gmail.com)

Generally tech>truth unless the argument is bad.

I do not like spreading, but if you must, please share the doc and be incredibly clear when speaking. I do not read the doc while you speak. If I miss something that's on you.

I will vote on pretty much anything provided that I understand it and it is not openly racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

I like trad debate, but if you are doing it make sure that you have a clear value and value criterion WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. Explain to me why your contention level impacts matter under your own framework and why your framework is preferable to your opponent's.

I do not like utilitarianism. I find it is often misused and boring to judge. It is not a value, and I will be very likely to vote against it if there are little to no warrants and your opponent is running a different framework well. Run at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate it fairly if it is genuinely run well, and I maintain equally high standards for other frameworks.

Prog stuff:

Trix, friv theory, spikes are all bad. 1 NIB is okay.

K is lovely as long as it is clear and understandable. Links are a must. Really make it as clear as possible because I probably don't know about your pre-fiat heidegger k aff.

To steal from a good friend:

I am very unlikely to vote on a K if:

1. You cannot explain your alt well.

2. You clearly do not understand your literature and are just reading from blocks.

3. You have not impacted out why the K means you win the debate - It means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

Theory is fine as long as there is actual abuse. I do not vote on disclosure theory, and I default to reasonability.

LARP is fine. Make sure your disads have strong link chains because I am veeerrrrrry likely to not buy that extinction comes from the aff breathing. Also the whole util stuff above still applies. CPs and PICs are okay but I will vote on theory if the aff makes the arg. Make sure there's a net benefit. IF YOU POWER TAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN. If the debate is close I might call for evidence, and power tags make my job really easy.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions please. Be respectful of your opponent.

I will give +0.5 speaker points if you make a Big Lebowski or Top Gun reference in round.

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was recognized in the NFL.  I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate  theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in Policy Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading evidence from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated.

Eric He -

Dartmouth '23

eric.he1240@gmail.com

Better than most for cp theory

Slightly neg on condo when equally debated

Kritiks are ok

Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact

Wipeout and/or spark is :(

for LD -

really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad

I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat

Offense defense risk analysis will be used

solvency is necessary

T is not a rvi

yes zero risk is a thing

please be clear

please do line by line

stop asking if i disclose speaks

also speed reading blocks at blazing speed will get you low speaker points, debating off your flow will get you good speaker points

if i have to decide another round on disclosure theory i will scream

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

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

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

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

Please just call me Hertzig.

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

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

BIG PICTURE:

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

SHORTCUT:

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

Trad debate - 1

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

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Background:

Hi! My name's Andrew and I debated LD for Montville Township High School (NJ) for four years. On the national circuit, I was a K / performance debater but I always preferred traditional debate, which I did on the local circuit. In college, I competed for the Tufts Debate Society and Ethics Bowl team. Now, I am the debate coach for Montville Township High School.

Preferences:

While I'm receptive to any and all types of arguments, here's the scale of what I'm comfortable evaluating: Trad, Ks, CPs, DAs > Theory > T, Phil, Non-Topical ACs. Basically, while I feel the most comfortable judging substance, I will evaluate all arguments to the best of my ability, whether it's a traditional round or a debate between a non-topical AC and T.

Miscellaneous:

• Spreading is fine but slow down for author names and argument taglines.

• If you're reading a theory or T shell, warrant your voters. For instance, simply saying "fairness is a voter because debate is a game and games have rules" is insufficient (an activity can resemble another activity without adopting all its features). Similarly, if you want to argue against RVIs, you need to say more than "no RVIs because you don't win for being fair" (the RVI argument was never "vote for me because I'm fair," it's "vote for me if I win on theory because theory has shifted the debate in terms of time and substance such that the round can only be evaluated on who wins theory").

• I won't evaluate any arguments that rely on pictures, graphs, or charts. The norm of emailing / flashing cases exists due to accessibility concerns, not for participants to introduce visual aids and presentations into what is otherwise an oral competition. As such, please refrain from saying anything along the lines of "see my attached [insert visual aid] as proof of my argument." This also applies to disclosure theory; I don't want to see screenshots of private emails between you and your opponent.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

I am looking for clear statement logical development of of argument.

I like debators to give off-time roadmap and use that to organize their round.

Please use this email to disclose - sheezahussain@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and have been judging since 2016.

I take this seriously and expect that you have invested the time and energy into doing the same. I am empathetic when I see a speaker has done the prep and is trying...I am not pleased when I see someone who is being flippant about the event or the opportunity to participate/compete.

Debate events:

• I don’t mind fast talking – go for it – but I don’t like spreading. If you're going to talk fast, add me to the email chain.
• I flow….meaning I try to capture your key points and see if your opponent counters them (assuming the point is reasonable)
• If an opponent doesn’t respond to your point, I won’t automatically give you the point. I expect them to respond to every reasonable argument you put out there
• I know you will likely have a well-developed constructive speech, so I find myself more interested in how you counter and defend arguments
• I won’t tolerate personal attacks, discrimination or academic dishonesty
• I will evaluate your ability to advocate for your side and support it, realizing that both sides are usually not equal
• I enjoy clever arguments. Humor, emotive speaking and illustrative examples – we judge a lot of rounds and it’s nice to hear something creative or a creative approach to making a point
• If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask me before the round

Strike me if…

• You spread.. To me, if you're spreading, I might as well read the case myself while you sit there silently
• You are going to be so off-topic with your case that I wonder if we've changed topics
• You are going to use tricks

=============================================================================

Speech Events: I want to get lost in what you're sharing with me -- I want to forget that I am judging and want to be left wanting more.

*For interp events (OI, DI, DUO, POI, DEC, etc), I am looking for characters that are well developed. I want it to be clear when you're building, when you hit the climax and how you make us feel in that moment. I appreciate when speakers use every tool available to them (within what's allowed) - facial expressions, gestures, vocal variety, etc. I want to see that you are so comfortable and familiar with the material that it feels natural, but I also want to feel your intensity and passion.

*For platform events (Extemp, OO, Info, etc), I look for a well-planned speech -- Does it have good structure? Do you have evidence to back up your points? Do you have a strong hook? Is it creative? Did you conclusion tie a bow on the gift that is your speech?

Lay/Parent Judge

I prefer a slow debate, as it ensures more engagement with the opponents position, so spreading will not be the best course of action. I do look at evidence and value evidence comparison so put me on the email chain (smjohn@gmail.com). I will try my best to evaluate all arguments but I am only confident in my ability to understand LARP. Speaking persuasively along with explicit weighing are very important, so make sure to do both those things throughout the entire debate. When there are 2 claims in opposition, explain why I should trust your evidence better in order to win your claim. I will try my best not to intervene with my own personal opinions, however claims that are more intuitively true, like extinction is bad require less work than intuitively false claims. Speaks are based on strategy, clarity, and argument explanation. Lastly please be kind to your opponent and do not make arguments that make debate unsafe.

I have been involved in coaching and judging Debate in many forms for a couple of decades now – including having a team in the first ever Public Forum Final Round at Nationals. I do approach Debate as an educational activity whose primary value is derived from its ability to help students learn good critical thinking skills and good communications skills. In all debates I listen for which side has a clear argument for why their side should win. Do they present logical reasoning and evidence to support that argument, and address the arguments of the other side, and are their arguments clearly presented? That doesn’t mean debaters can’t use jargon and talk fast (I probably talk faster than you do!) but if that takes away from the fundamental logic of the argument, they’re not being a clear communicator.

Frances A Johnson

As a prior competitor for Lincoln Douglas debate, I understand the work that goes into preparing for and conducting a debate. I recently expanded my judging experience by judging LD at the Harvard tournament. On a personal note, I'm a mom of two teenage daughters who play a variety of sports locally and for travel teams.

As I judge your debate, please remember to keep your delivery slow and clear. I am looking for arguments and counter-arguments that are well thought out and time has been spent researching the topic so you can support your position in the debate. Research should be clearly stated. I am judging the debate on how well prepared you are, how well you defend your position and how well you listen to your opponent and respond in cross-examination. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. Individuals should show courtesy and respect for their opponents.

I need content warnings for SA or self harm. Don't read arguments about these in front of me (I'd prefer not hearing wipeout or death good either).

Scroll to the bottom for LD/pref sheet stuff.

Hi! I'm Neel or NK (they/them). I debated circuit LD for a season and circuit PF for a little more. I read a bit of everything. I attend the University of Michigan (go blue) but don't debate for the school.

I'd like to be on the email chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

I'm not the greatest flower so it's best to debate slower in front of me - I'd cap myself at 80% of LD top speeds, and I recommend popping tags to give me a bit of pen time.

I'm of the belief that tech > truth, but making objectively untrue arguments is generally not strategic. I also disregard tech during instances of disrespect or hateful behavior. I don't tolerate bad behavior.

I'm admittedly not the best judge for tricks or dense phil debates - my lack of experience with the literature and my flowing skill tends to make me bad for these debates. Still happy to evaluate these arguments if you believe they might be strategic.

I read a bit of everything - I'm probably best for policy debates, but I almost exclusively read the kritik towards the end of my career and I started out as a bit of a theory bot. I generally like seeing debaters take risks and execute fringe strategies well.

You will lose if you - 1. do something exceedingly rude, 2. lose an evidence challenge, or 3. kick an unconditional advocacy.

I give good speaks and will disclose them if you ask.

Policy - 1

Better for CP theory than most other policy judges, but I think it makes for stale debates.

Better for low off debates with strong case pushes.

Evidence quality is very important and can decide debates (both through spin and ethics challenges).

Impact turns are cool but I do not evaluate wipeout or death good.

K - 1/2

I have a soft spot for unique K affs but I'm 50/50 on framework. Not picky on what route you decide to take (hard right fairness is just as viable as any other iteration)

I dislike overviews that "implicitly" answer everything - I strongly prefer hearing the LBL work after a short and sweet overview

Best for identity kritiks, and probably not great for pomo - next to none of my experience is in pomo literature.

Presumption and legitimate interaction against K affs is good.

T/Theory - 2/3

I don't enjoy hearing Nebel debates but I'll still flow and evaluate arguments made on the T page.

Competing interps, no RVIS, drop the arg for theory. Drop the debater for T.

Great for cp theory, meh for frivolous shells. Big fan of disclosure. Not a big fan of other violations sourced out of round.

Not going to evaluate arguments that police appearance.

Tricks - 4/Strike

These confuse me - they're often read blippily and quickly, making me a very meh judge for these.

I evaluate debates after the 2AR and will not allow an evil demon to make me vote aff or neg.

Phil - 4/Strike

I think I haven't read enough or fostered a strong enough interest to want to listen to these debates.

I can understand Kant, and that's about it. Do with this what you will.

PF

Relying on sticky defense is lazy debating. You need to extend arguments if you want me to evaluate them.

I have a preference for faster and more technical rounds, but I'm down to listen to anything.

I have a strong preference for reading cut cards and disclosing open-source. These can be reasons to reject the team.

New disads in the 2nd rebuttal are fine and can be strategic. Just make sure to do weighing on them.

I boost speaks for disclosure, reading cut cards, and sending speech docs.

Good for clever strategies (impact turns, word piks, circumvention, presumption, etc.)

Hi I'm Chandra. I'm a parent judge that's still quite new to judging. 

Some important notes: 

• I'm not a big fan of spreading since I'm new to judging, but if you do spread, please add me to the email chain and coordinate with you partner beforehand.(ckandanuru@gmail.com)
• I don't know too much about theory and tricks debate; I would prefer traditional/lay debate styles that stick to the topic.  
• Please provide me with clear voters in the final speech & well-explained warrants/extensions throughout the entire round. Otherwise, you risk confusing me.

Besides that, feel free to debate in the way you prefer. If you have any questions, you're welcome to email me at ckandanuru@gmail.com or ask me at the beginning of the round.

Hello! My name is Kay Karlin and my pronouns are they/them. In high school I did four years of LD debate and two of congress. I've judged policy, PF and LD for four years. It is most important to me that competitions understand their own arguments and are able to convince me.

For all debate: email for email chains is kaykarlin6@gmail.com I understand technology issues but I set a timer for 5 minutes for any wifi/email/google doc confusion. Anything past 5 minutes comes out of prep time!

Extentions should include Year, Author, Tagline, idc what order, but you must include all these!

Arguments against people's identities, basic human rights, or that are aligned with racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated and will get you dropped and reported to your coach.

I'm not necessarily anti-spreading, (I'm open to speed, but I will say clear) but I think that spreading is bad for debate, because it encourages us to make the space more inaccessible in order to win arguments. Again, I am fine with speed, you can spread in front of me, but I think that we should make a shift as a community away from spreading.

LD Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues but I'm open to Ks/CPs/Theory so long as you can sustain your argument. If you NEED to run seven off cases to solve inequity in the debate space, I want to give you the space to do that. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated. (Do not run disclosure theory with me. It's bad for debate/small school accessibility and I will drop you.)

Definition debate is boring!!! Have a productive discourse!

For Ks-- my threshold is a bit higher but I never want to prevent you from making arguments you're passionate about. Just be prepared to highlight/defend/extend your link, impact, and alt. (Fine with K-affs, Identity Ks, etc)

I will drop speaker points for prefacing. (Using your time to question your opponent to frontload your case with arguments that haven't yet been presented in round)

DO NOT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE-- all of your impacts should be evaluated (and will be evaluated by me) under the framework. I do like to see competing ideas of frameworks, but I understand that timing makes that difficult, but I want to see debate about which world creates more benefit.

If you plan to debate in LD like it's Policy-lite I am not the judge for you. Framework is one of the most important things to me.

Policy Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues, and I'm not a huge fan of theory, but debate is your world and I'm just living in it while we're in round and I'm open to whatever you can justify. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated.

I love to see speeches explicitly comparing the Aff and Neg plans and impact calculations based off that. Prove to me why your argument is better.

Tag Teaming for CX is fine, but I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space, but I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

PF Paradigm:

PF is the area of debate in which I have the least experience, but I like to see a healthy clash.

I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space.

I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

mark kivimaki- he/him pronouns - umnakdebate[at]gmail[dot]com

edina '19 -- hsld and speech

umn '23 -- ndt/ceda policy -- minnesota ak forever <3

silliness and cowardice are voting issues

we are back to in person debate and some y'all could not be more obvious about stealing prep... c'mon y'all. i will drop speaks significantly if i notice it happening.

i have an auditory processing disability and i need you to be very clear - you need to go at most 70% of what you think your top speed is. i won't flow off the doc. i will only evaluate the words that i hear come out of your mouth. i will clear you twice and then i'll close my flow and do my homework. speaks are capped at 27 if your spreading is unclear and you don't respond to clearing. speed has never been a problem for me, but clarity very much has -when choosing between the two, always choose clarity. speakers who slow down and use inflection will receive exceptional speaker points. i want to listen to communicators, not doc bots.

i've been profoundly unimpressed and unpersuaded by most debates lately. too many teams shotgun blocks, stare at their computer for the entire speech, etc. monotone spreading and reading blocks is unpersuasive. make it interesting. debate with style.

marked doc = a document that shows where any marked cards were marked. if you want to ask which cards or analytics were read, you need to use cx for that - or better yet, flow!

i care very little about the content of the arguments you read. i like impact calculus and judge instruction. articulate and justify your vision of how i should evaluate the debate and execute on the line by line and i will do my best to follow. for transparency's sake: i read a performance aff and pretty much exclusively go for ks on the neg. i am far more comfortable evaluating a kvk or kvpolicy round than a policy throwdown. that being said, i've done policy-style argumentation in the past and i spend a lot of time doing policy-oriented research for my students.

i will default to kicking the counterplan / alternative for the negative if nobody instructs me on this issue. the 2ar is too late to start.

don't want to hear content warning theory except in the most egregious cases where the material is objectively upsetting (i.e. SA, suicide, graphic depictions of violence). i understand that this might be an arbitrary brightline, but i think the direction that content warnings in debate are taking is incredibly concerning. “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” do not need content warnings, and to suggest so is trivializing.

evidence ethics and clipping violations stop the round - they are not issues that get to be debated out. clipping accusations need recorded proof. i will go by tournament rules for assessing evidence ethics violations.

cx is an important speech. i flow it.

these are some paradigms i generally agree with: katya ehresman, jayanne forrest, lily guizatoullina, spencer anderson-mcelligott

minkoko@college.harvard.edu

Hello! My name is Min, and I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard studying government, economics, and social theory. I competed in debate all four years of high school, where I focused primarily on World Schools-- but am familiar with PF and IE events as well. I currently am a member of the Harvard College Debating Union, where I compete in American Parliamentary.

General norms

• Please be respectful and reasonable. High school debate can get really nasty at times, and we're all here to have a fun and educational experience. Don't use personal attacks against your opponents, use prejudiced language, or make sweeping generalizations (all of which are signs of poor argumentation as well).
• I am not a huge fan of spreading. However, I understand the need to get all the arguments in for formats like PF and LD, so I can definitely listen to fast-paced speeches.
• Dislike theory

Public Forum

• It's been a while since I've done PF, so I might not be as familiar with the timing/prep/showing cards aspects.
• Speed is okay if you need it to fit in quality arguments.
• I dislike evidence wars. Don't nitpick at the validity of one source back and forth.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
• Roadmaps are helpful. Anything that makes my life as a judge better will help with a flow, which will help with a ballot.
• I come from World Schools, where reasonability is king. However, in PF I have to consider all points on the flow especially if the other team drops it. That being said, just because you manage to link your tiny policy change to nuclear war or climate change or AI or whatever doesn't mean I will give you the win automatically (well, if the opposing team actually does its job). Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily mean the biggest impact in the round. In these instances, weigh probabilities as well.
• CX is mostly useless for me.

LD

• Truth be told, I have never debated in LD. I have seen a few rounds, but am far from an expert at the format. I am somewhat familiar with the vocabulary such as "criterion"
• Speed is fine, full-on spreading might mean I miss a few of your points during a speech.
• I have a background in political philosophy and social theory, so feel free to utilize those constructs when discussing values.
• Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily imply automatic win--weigh probabilities and magnitudes as well.
• Standard debate procedures apply- weigh impacts, consider the two worlds, give roadmaps etc.

Congress

• Never competed in Congress but have judged it before
• I will rely on the PO to keep things orderly, not too familiar with parliamentary procedure
• A good speech can be many things--keep it organized (typical intros, arguments, conclusion)
• I enjoy rhetorical flairs and style--it keeps things interesting in an otherwise very long session
• One thing that annoys me if the speeches keep saying the same thing or same argument over and over again. Be creative and come up with some novel arguments (even if it's nonstandard, it's better than you regurgitating a previous speaker's points)
• I expect later speakers to respond to the statements earlier speakers have made

World Schools

I absolutely love World Schools and it's my favorite format of debate because it's accessible, current, and meaningfully engages with real world issues--so I hope rounds continue to operate in that way! I mainly operated as a First and Reply speaker.

• I think tabula rasa judging is a bit vague at times, and this paradigm opens up the potential for a lot of weird stuff said in the round to stand. For the most part I am tabula rasa, so YOU should do the work of telling me WHAT to prioritize when voting. But because reasonability is an inherent part of WSD I'm not going to let really bizarre stuff dictate the round, even if a team drops that argument. I'd rather a team makes an argument on reasonability than me intervening.
• Assume that I as the judge am a moderately well-informed member of society (like a New York Times Reader). Explain anything requiring specialized knowledge out to me, but there's no need to tell me that India is a country in Asia or that the U.S. invaded Iraq.
• Try to adhere to traditional norms of speaker roles--aka first speaker offers the first 2 substantives and potentially a model, second speaker focuses more on line by line rebuttal, third speaker on collapsing and weighing. However, I'm not going to penalize you if you buck the norm and have innovative argument construction.
• Ideally, POIs should be offered around every 30 seconds and each speaker takes 2.
• Use global examples if relevant to the topic.
• One of my pet peeves is when people try to fill up the whole 8 minutes of a speech by repeating stuff they already said. If you find there is nothing more to be said, please just end the speech.
• This isn't a huge problem in WSD but I also hate evidence wars. Nitpicking on a particular warrant isn't particularly helpful to me as a judge, and focusing on bigger picture ideas will most likely be a better use of your time.
• Be mindful of actors/stakeholders and voters. Look at clashes in the round. Clarify the different worlds of Prop and Opp.
• Be mindful of both practical and principle concerns, and smart WSD teams will focus on the area that is stronger to their side.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
• I enjoy creative arguments that suggest that you researched well and thought about these ideas deeply. Of course I will be expecting stock arguments in a particular motion, but an innovative argument that makes me see the round in a new light will be rewarded. On the other hand, arguments can get TOO creative and have no basis in political or economic reality.
• Ballot: Content will focus on evidence-based reasoning and whether your impacts outweighed the other team. Style will focus on well-structured arguments and clarity. Strategy will focus on how well the three of you work as a team, good POI strategy, and the ability to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses as they appear in the round.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

Enough with the disclo. Run it against and I will probably drop you.

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

Hello,

I am the coach of the Fort Lauderdale High School Speech and Debate team. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013 at Cooper City High School. I studied law/economics/history at Cornell University but did not debate there. To be honest, I didn’t really think much about debate after high school except when reminiscing with old friends -- until August of 2021 when fate delivered me to Fort Lauderdale and back into the world of Speech and Debate. Been judging and coaching like a madman since.

TL;DR consider me the most tech lay judge ever, or the most lay tech judge ever.

DETAILS:

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you. I shouldn't have to say this but if you're racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic in round I will drop you.

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning. Nobody likes a sore winner, and I definitely don’t give them good speaker points.

-Theory – Run at your own risk. I don’t read “high theory” so if you’re going to quote Lacan or Nietzsche or whoever, explain it to me like I’m a baby who doesn’t know anything. That said I’ve evaluated Ks that were explained to me in a “lay” way.

-Spreading is relative – but I prefer clarity over speed. I’m OK with fast “normal” speech, but if you’re speaking too fast for me to understand your arguments then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. If you are speaking too I will tap on the desk/table to signal to you to slow down. That said, I’ve only very rarely had the need to ask someone to do so.

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

My email for evidence chains: Arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com

-I flow everything and judge the round based on that. Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

-Tech>over truth, but if the arguments you are making are based on outright obvious falsehoods you will not win. 2+2=4, the sky is blue, earth rotates around the sun.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well.

If you spread, I will not be able to follow your arguments as well, so speaking slower is to your benefit.

I will not read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

I don't know anything about theory or Ks, so run them at your own risk of me not understanding what you're talking about.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

PA: Structure/organization, confidence, personality, fluency, and topic uniqueness are what I value most in any PA event

Interp: Effective and purposeful blocking, emotion/range, vocal inflection, and personality in that order- exaggerate but more importantly be deliberate

Debate: trad line by line debater here! Things I look for are strong voters, framework debate (tech > truth) for LD, winner is usually the person who does a better job defending their value/criterion and possibly even opponent's. For PF- consistent defense and weigh on voters

Hey, I'm Connor! I'm currently a freshman at Harvard College, originally from the LA area. I debated throughout high school, but mainly as a freshman and sophomore (focused on LD, with a bit of Congress). Just fyi, this is my first time judging formally.

I'm definitely a lot more used to traditional forms of LD with regular-paced speeches and such, so that is very much preferable. Frankly, I'm not very familiar with progressive debate—that being said, if you do want to use more progressive arguments/styles, I'll do my best to follow but I can't guarantee that I'll be able to understand your argument perfectly. If you're going to use things that are pretty progressive, just make sure you explain them thoroughly since I remember some things from high school, there's probably going to be others that I'm not familiar with. Please just don't throw around terms and acronyms without at least briefly prefacing it b/c there's a decent chance I won't know what you mean from the get-go; I'll do my best to understand what it is as you talk (as I sometimes had to do when I debated lol) but it's much preferred to explain it a little.

I'm okay with spreading as long as I can actually understand you, but similar to progressive stuff, I don't prefer it. Just make sure you're clear with what you're saying and that both your opponent and I can understand what's going on. Just lmk ahead of time if you're going to spread, that'd be helpful.

Being someone who's more comfortable with traditional debate, I put a lot of emphasis on weighing/strongly-reasoned rebuttals/rejoinders in your last speeches. Make sure to signpost for me as well, so I can follow along on my own flow (off-time roadmaps are also good).

Just try not to be completely a jerk to your opponent; there's a line between being assertive/confident during cross-x and whatnot but don't be that guy.

Email: connorlee2924@gmail.com

I'm happy to answer any questions abt college, etc. and give feedback at the end of the round. Look forward to meeting you all!

My decision will consider holistically how well you debate morality and back specific arguments with specific evidence and data.

Please don't spread, unless you send me your case & cards before the AC. Also, even if only one side spreads, I'd prefer that both sides send cases & cards before the AC, for the purpose of consistency and equity.

Repetition ≠ extension. Use time effectively and efficiently. Arguments made past time will likely be struck. Please monitor your own time (prep as well). I will do so as well and signal when I believe time is up.

During prelims, I will not reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise. For rounds after prelims, I will reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise.

RFDs will always be written.

I am not interested in spreading, K, or Theory debate. I will vote on topicality if it is run well. Please write my ballot for me and give voting issues in your final speech. Weighing is encouraged!

I have one year of judging experience, so please keep the debate clean and clear.

Hi! I'm Jane (Harvard '26). I debated for Immaculate Heart for three years and qualified to the TOC 2x.

Put me on the email chain – jane.lichtman@gmail.com.

Policy:

- Yes! My favorite strategies center heavily on impact turns. Also a fan of the politics DA and process CPs. Read more 2NR evidence!

- Neg-leaning on condo and most other CP theory arguments. I like competition debates.

- Insert re-highlighting. I'll default to judge kicking the CP (but the 2NR should remind me).

T/Theory:

- Defaults: reasonability, DTA when possible, fairness = education, no RVIs.

- I didn't read frivolous theory, but I'll (ambivalently) vote for these arguments if you win competing interps.

- Re: Nebel – not my favorite, but I understand that it's sometimes necessary against small affs. Blitzing through 6 minutes of scripted plans bad arguments = difficult to flow and not very impressive.

- You should disclose – no exceptions.

Kritiks:

- Not a fan.

- Affs get to weigh the case. In that vein, the 2AR should almost always be framework + extinction outweighs.

- K's become (marginally) more viable when the 2NR wins that extinction is inevitable, the link turns case, and/or the risk of the advantage is very low.

- 2NR framework interpretations are new arguments and will be disregarded.

- Any K that purports to link to the aff's rhetoric must pull lines from 1AC evidence. "Threat inflation"-style link arguments are non-starters without beating the aff's internal links.

- Most alts do nothing; if the alt "solves case" against a policy aff, it should lose to a theory argument. The aff should take up this fight more often.

- Re: K's vs. phil affs – these seem unwinnable for the neg without disproving the aff's syllogism.

Non-T Affs:

- Firmly believe that affs should defend a topical plan.

- Fairness = clash >>> everything else. I also enjoy impact turns (e.g. heg, cap, and liberalism good).

- Most non-T affs seem to rely on implicit (read: unjustified) assumptions about debate’s impact on subject formation and fail to clear the presumption barrier.

- Unfamiliar with K vs. K debate.

Phil:

- I really like these arguments, although I rarely read them. Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Over-explain if your framework isn't util or Kant.

- The 1AC should have a framework – new 1AR framework justifications are probably illegitimate.

Tricks:

- I never read tricks and I'd prefer not to judge cheap-shot strategies, but I'll hear them out. Theory tricks seem intuitive; substantive tricks probably require more explanation.

Hey, I'm Elaine (she/her). I'm a first-year at MIT; in high school I did 4 years of LD with extensive experience in World Schools (nsda 2x quarters) and a bit of experience in Extemp.

(Note: most of this paradigm is Ely Altman's)

In LD, I focused on trad and policy debate and do not have that much experience with K's or advanced theory. That being said, I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic knowledge. But if you have more stock arguments available, I do prefer those.

Please include me on the email chain: eliu0499@gmail.com. If you go too fast or aren't clear when reading, though, I won't fill in the gaps for you. I also don't love listening to spreading, so please try not to unless you absolutely have to.

GENERAL:

Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first for me though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.

I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing and world comparison in the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.

If you make me laugh you'll get a mini speaks boost.

Lastly, if possible, make me care about your arguments! Tell me explicitly who you help, and why that matters. Judges aren't robots. If you can give me a convincing narrative tinged with passion, it goes a long way.

Short Prefs:

traditional debate / flay - 1

LARP- 2

identity Ks - 3

High theory Ks and phil - 4

T/theory- 4. I don't love, but I'll vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you have to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.

Tricks - strike. Just don't.

Trad LD:

I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Rinse and repeat until the debate has a winner. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.

Now, here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.

1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).

2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me why your offense is more important than your opponents.

3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on.

4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.

5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.

6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!

Progressive LD:

I'm in between on the tech vs. truth debate. Obviously, tech matters because full truth would justify me voting for Aff just because I personally believe that side. Full tech justifies the race to the bottom we see right now with debaters throwing out unwarranted blips and expecting to win because their opponent dropped a single sentence. I'm somewhere in the middle probably slightly leaning towards tech. No one is tabula rasa. You trust me to use my agency to make a decision about who won the round, so trust me to use my agency to decide whether tech or truth matters more in a specific round.

Things I like: increasing accessibility in the debate space (i.e being inclusive to small schools & new debaters), warranted out link chains, probability>magnitude weighing. Good evid ethics! Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh, signpost, and extend.

Things I dislike: Tricks, lack of clarity, when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, arguments that are (either implicitly or explicitly) exclusionary, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That will get you dropped. Also new in the last speech, just don't.

CX is binding.

SPEECH

I did some extemp my senior year and have watched a lot of speech rounds online, I will try my best to evaluate rounds!

If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!

This is my second year judging LD as a parent judge. 

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

I am familiar with traditional LD and usually well-researched on the topic. When it comes to progressive-style debate, my knowledge all comes from the debate guru (https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/) 

Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments>Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy>Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer policy-oriented traditional rounds with straight-forward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized. 

Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit: 

• No spreading
• No theory
• No tricks
• No spikes
• No Ad Hominem
• No Bigotry/Disrespect

For progressive debaters -

• Your chance of winning will significantly increase if you slow down to <250 wpm
• Your chance of winning will significantly increase if you run mainstream structures in a situation where you have to fight back using non-traditional arguments. I am comfortable with DAs/CPs but PLEASE read only one CP in your NEG case. Also, keep your DAs topical. 

Good Luck! 

hello i'm yuewei (they/them) . i debated ld at interlake 4 years and graduated 2022. add me to the email chain: llliliue@mit.edu also please do disclose

!! i am very rusty on debate things due to being pretty inactive senior yr & not doing debate in college. ie err on the side of caution and explain extra + dont start at top speed especially if ur using a lot of jargon/being technical, i also am coming into this tournament not knowing the topic

general:

- i am most familiar with phil, policy, theory/t, k - in that order. i mostly read phil/policy as a debater but i am not opposed to any specific type of argument as long as you warrant/explain clearly

- make it easy for me to vote so i dont screw up your round!! weigh/signpost/collapse. give a clear path to ballot by the 2a/nr

- do not be bigoted/make the round unsafe. accommodate accessibility needs to wtv extent possible. default neutral pronouns etc

- defaults: drop the debater, no RVIs, competing interps, epistemic confidence, no judge kick, presume neg unless there is a CP/alt.

- im most familiar with levinas, virtue ethics, kant, pragmatism, util bc that is what i ran mostly

- tricks - will vote for if won. im familiar w the common arguments but i am not a good judge for super fast-paced dense tricks because I will almost certainly be confused unless you number/label/format args clearly

- k: decently familiar w some literature around the more common ks (neolib, setcol, queerpes, etc) but head empty dont assume prior knowledge , helpful: thesis level arguments + impacting + fleshing out links

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!????

I did LD debate at LHS for four years. I qualified for the TOC twice and currently coach the Lexington Debate Team.

Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics so send them.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.

General Things:

1) If you are unclear and as a result, I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear when needed - if an argument was half a sentence and unclear in the 1AR/1NC assume it doesn't meet the litmus test for having a warrant... meaning I won't vote for a collapse on it.

2) I am not debating, so I don't have a right to tell you what you read. Please do and read what you like.

3) Truth over tech is wack - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true.

4) I have a low threshold for 1AR and 2AR extensions for dropped arguments - just mention the tag or interp - but I need explanations for its implications and applications on the flow.

5) Debates a game

6) I do not vote on ad hominems

7) I will boost speaks if you sit down early or/and take no prep only if you can still win.

---Varsity LD---

Quick Prefs

Theory - 1

Kritiks - 1

Phil - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy/LARP - 4

-

For specifics -

Tricks: I'm well versed - people give this style of debate a bad name by extending every dropped sentence and throwing crap at the wall with no weighing or implication - impact out a few well and explain why they justify a ballot.

Theory: No such thing as frivolous theory, reasonability is strategic if well justified, do standard weighing between multiple shells or I'll default substance. I'm not very well versed in grammar rules so err on the side of over-explanation. 1AR theory makes being aff so easy so read it lol. Yes, RVIs is a good argument.

Stock K's/Topical K's: Please err on the side of heavy LBL rather than reading a 5-minute overview with loads of embedded clash. I view the K as a philosophical argument so framing is important. Have a counter-interpretation to weigh the case and read case defense (extinction inevitable is smart) or else you'll lose. I'm open to VTL arguments, debate bad, ID pol tricks, K tricks (e.g. floating PIKs), and death good. K v K debates are fun as long as there is good impact calc, link analysis and examples.

Non T: I read a lot of these. I enjoy the "debate good-bad" debate. T Framework makes the game work though so have well developed impact turns.

Policy/LARP: Getting better at evaluating it.

Philosophy: I'm confident in evaluating this correctly. Please make framework interactions (hijacks are good). Don't shoehorn terrible offense just so you can read the Phil you want, you will probably lose. if you justify epistemic modesty, explain how I resolve the round correctly under it. I have a high threshold for winning extinction o/w against deontic theories - you probably won't win this if you lose util under epistemic confidence.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with fur vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise. Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague. Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc. Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

I am a parent judge new to LD debate and to judging debate. LD appeals to me because I prefer the idea of debating values to debating policy per se.

If I can't follow what you are saying - whether due to excessive speed of delivery, logical gaps in your argument, technical debate jargon, or something else - I can't vote for it. Also, before you are done speaking, straight up tell me what to vote for & why!

Let's keep the clash addressed to the topic, as opposed to each other, so we can all enjoy a well-considered, civil debate.

My email - mbmatteson@gmail.com

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.

I have no prior experience in speech and debate. I have never competed and only recently started judging. I understand basic debate argumentation but am still learning specific jargon and technicalities. Please try not to speak too fast but I understand that this is a space that requires time constraints. I have previously judged speech rounds in one tournament. Despite my lack of experience, I want to hear any kind of arguments that you have prepared. Please clearly extend your arguments throughout the round, with author names or taglines so I know exactly what you’re extending. I am excited to see what all of you have to say, but please be respectful of each other in round.

I am a traditional lay judge with limited experience. 

Organization: Keep the round as organized as possible. ALWAYS give an off-time roadmap before all speeches and signpost during each rebuttal/constructive.

I am unfamiliar with the following so please do not do these during round:

Kritiks, Tricks, Theory, Spikes, Non Topical Affs

Spreading--Please no spreading. Make sure you are clear, organized and that your opponent is able to understand you.  At any point, if your opponent asks you to slow down...please do so.

If you plan to speak somewhat fast, please add me to the email chain below: mehtadipal@yahoo.com

LARP: I am relatively familiar with policy debate but make sure your plans are explained extremely thoroughly and clear. If I don't understand your case/policy position, then I will drop you in the round. 

Counter plans and Disadvantages: If you plan to run these during round, make sure you explain them extremely clearly and be very thorough. I will also evaluate the counter plan if you explain it as an "alternative" during round if your opponent isn't as familiar with CP's.

Signposting---Please ALWAYS Signpost. This is the most straightforward and clearest way for me to keep track of what your arguments and when you are saying what during your speeches. If you do not Signpost, your points may become muddy and what you're saying may get lost to your opponent and I.

Voters: Please provide me with overviews and clear, reasonable and fair voters during your last speeches. If you do not do so, I will not know how you should win the round. Don't finish the round with untouched, messy and abandoned arguments. Make sure to extend all arguments and make that very clear to me as the judge. If your opponent says you didn't extend something and if I also don't catch it, then I will assume you did not say it and I will drop the argument. 

Thank you and Good Luck!

Hi I'm Laura (she/her)

Parent judge

For the email chain: lmeyermd@gmail.com

Feel free to speak faster than normal, but I need to be able to understand you and flow the round.

I'll say slow or clear if I can't understand you

I'll try to be tech > truth but I'm not evaluating blatantly false arguments

I want to hear your analysis and reasoning, not just a bunch of evidence.

I appreciate signposting to help me make sure my flow is accurate and I'm following where you are leading in the round.

Weighing, analysis and judge instructions are very helpful and will help me evaluate your argument and will help you have the best chance to win the round. Tell me in a clear and concise way why you think you are winning the round and why your opponents impacts should be weighed lower or not at all.

Please be respectful to each other.

TLDR: Emphasize judge instruction and weighing, have a logical argument, and tell me what points you think I should be voting on and why

Hello, I am Elizabeth. I am a lay/local parent judge with a background in education.

Please do not spread. Debate should be accessible; your speaker score will not thank you if you spread in front of me. You should be speaking at a maximum of 70 percent of your top speed. I will mouth "clear" or "slow" as a warning.

Understanding that I am a lay judge should give you a fair enough idea of what I'm looking for/what I have a good grasp of. But please don't get scared to run things in front of me because of that!

A few key things:

• Avoid tricks
• Avoid theory unless there's genuine abuse/an issue with the opposition's case (no frivolous theory), then feel free to run it in front of me as I've voted on it before
• Kritiks are fine as long as you link your arguments to the resolution. Make sure they're coherent and not just "cap bad- therefore, I win." I'm not too familiar with Ks, so keep that in mind (lay judge), but please do not get scared to run one in front of me.
• Phil is fine if you slow down and explain your reasoning thoroughly; not everyone reads the same authors you do. A layperson should be able to understand what you're getting at.
• LARP is okay; just keep policy jargon to a minimum. We're in LD, after all.
• Signpost, signpost, signpost! Make it easy for me to flow.
• Your warrants and extensions should be crystal clear- slow down on tags and remember to verbally pause or say quote/unquote so I know what's part of a card or not.
• If you're rude to your opponent, it will not go well for you.

Overall, just debate in the way you're most comfortable with, just as long as you're not abusive in your practice. In a round, I will judge what you say and stay completely unbiased (tech > truth). Debate should be fun; getting experimentative with your argumentation should be 100% fine, no matter your experience level.

You're welcome to email me at elymiani@gmail.com to disclose your case. I'd highly prefer it if you did so, as it would make it significantly easier for me to analyze your arguments.

Good luck to all of you! Debate is a great activity.

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns, I went to Harrison High School and debated for 4 years w/ Hertzig. I currently go to Wellesley College and major in Political Science and minor in Philosophy. I also taught at NSD Philly summer of 2022 and will again in 2023.

Add me to the email chain: lizzie.murno@gmail.com

IMPORTANT

- Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable. You are not moving on to the second contention after your timer went off. I keep official time and I will start cutting people off if they do it multiple times.

- If you make any argument that is homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, etc I will drop you, this is your only warning. Even if the other opponent doesn't make an argument about what you said, I will probably drop you.

- I know I am a FYO who debated on nat circuit but don't assume I know what you are talking about, you need to explain things very clearly to me.

- I despise the way util is read in debate and please don't read it in front of me. Util debates in front of me will just make me really upset and I beg of you to not read it in front of me if you have other options. Obviously, you do what you gotta do, but if you are unable to read any other argument don't pref me. If you get me and only have util I will never hold that against you because it is something so widespread in debate and very accessible for a lot of debaters. I won't drop you for reading util or give you lower strikes, but I won't we happy.

- BUTTTT bad util debate is wayyyyy better for me than a bad philosophy debate because at least I understand util and larp, it just makes me go into an existential crisis, but I prefer that over being postrounded because I didn't understand your philosophy. Also, util is a very accessible debate and widespread, so I would never be upset that you had to read it in front of me you really don't have to apologize for reading what you had I get it.

- so! Bad larp > bad phil. bad ks > bad larp. good theory > bad k, bad larp, bad phil. good ks > bad theory, good larp > bad ks. If you are good at theory or larp, please read that over reading a k you don't understand or wont be able to explain to me. If you cant explain phil like im 5, don't read it at all please I will not vote for it if I don't understand it.

Prefs

Ks - 1 (not mollow please)

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 3 - (I would honestly prefer a theory debate over larp (unless its softleft) which is something I'd never thought I'd say).

LARP - 5/6. I would rather be struck if you will read a heavy, bad larp scenario that ends in extinction. I cannot listen to one more argument with a terrible link chain that ends in extinction without wanting to rip my hair out.

Phil - 5 - I know I am a philosophy minor but the way that yall read it in debate makes no sense but if you think you can explain it to me properly feel free to try.

Only read Kant if you think it will help me write my Kant paper. (This means that you have to have a really good understanding of it and I need it explained to me well. The only Kant argument I understand is the categorical imperative).

Tricks - Strike

General:

- Tech and Truth??? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH, simply because the better argument tends to be the one more truthful and less technical! This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when its a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE. I am not going to do the work for you just because I know what you want to say and what you want me to think.

- Start slow and clear! Please do not go an incomprehensible speed in front of me, if something isn't in the doc and you are saying it really fast and unclear it won't be on my flow. But you can definitely spread in front of me. That being said, if you see that

- Signpost please

I basically just read Ks, K affs, and performance.

Ks

Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, queer theory (not queer pess/edelman), fem Ks, and cap Ks. I love a good K v K debate, if you don't interact with the K then we have a problem on our hands.

If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Those arguments are beyond easy to make you can prewrite them they dont need to be that good for me to consider them, but they have to be there. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.

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

Larp

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

I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times. I literally dislike util so I am not going to assume that is your framework even if I can tell you are impacting out to it.)

T/Theory

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

T against non T should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate.

Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". I think that a lot of the time people genuinely read th/t to moot aff offense and just take away from the discussion of the aff, so please have a real abuse story and I will vote on it! On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively

Don't post-round because you didn't read my paradigm - judge. adaptation. folks. If I am missing something please ask me before the round and I will tell you my preference. Feel free to email me with any questions before the round starts!!

For Novice LD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My name is Lillian Myers (they/them) new at judging, but I was the team captain of the Oregon City High School speech and debate team in 2019-2020 and I was a 2020 National Tournament Qualifier in Congress. I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, Radio Commentary, Informative, Prose, Programmed Oral Interpretation, and Extemporaneous. Currently, I'm a sophomore at Simmons University as a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Africana Studies double major.

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. I will not tolerate spreading of any kind, you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity. Because of my disability please do not spread. I don't want to have to mark you down for this, so please don't spread during my rounds.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that said, I am not a fan of kritiks or debate theory. If you do choose to use them, do not stray too far from the resolution. I would rather you spend more time on your case and addressing the resolution than trying to stray from the topic or argue about the debate itself.

I am a parent judge.

no theory, no K's, no complicated phil, no tricks

Speed:

DO NOT SPREAD, please speak clearly

Hi I'm Kaitlyn! I'm a sophomore at Boston College studying communications and English. I did Lincoln Douglass Debate during my junior and senior years of high school and I argued on both local and national circuits. I read a lot of feminist and environmental cases during my debate years and would love to see more of those. I typically stuck with traditional on-case arguments, but if you'd like to read off-topic cases like theory and kritiks, I'm comfortable hearing those.

Here's what you need to know about me as a judge:

• This should go without saying, but I will always vote against any hateful or discriminatory arguments. Just don't write them
• I would encourage you to strike me if you're planning to spread. I find it difficult to understand and take notes when debaters spread, and it's much harder for me to vote for an argument when I don't understand what's being said.
• PLEASE link to your impacts. My biggest pet peeve in debate is when debaters claim extinction or nuclear war impacts when it isn't relevant to their argument and there's no clear way to link it in. Basically, your impacts need to make sense based on the case you read.
• Be respectful to your opponent, especially during cross-ex. If you are monopolizing your opponent's cross-ex time, I will cut you off. Please don't make me do this.
• I flow all my rounds, and I will make my decision based off the flow. Make sure you're following the flow and signposting as you argue as it will make it much easier for me to vote for you.

My email is: kaitlynoconnor21@gmail.com

Hi everyone!

My name's Folu and I'm currently a freshman at Yale! For some of my debate history, my main event in high school was Lincoln Douglas but I also did some Congress. I've attended a good amount of national debate tournaments throughout my four years so I'm excited to judge you all this weekend!

I don't have too many rules, but I'm mostly trained in traditional debate. If you're going to integrate progressive methods into your speeches like Ks, plans, counter plans, theory, etc. you'll need to explain them extremely well in case. Assume I have absolutely no progressive background. I'm flexible with most things, but if you spread I'll have to drop you. I need to understand your case and if I have no chance of following it then I can't evaluate the round.

To me, the best debate rounds are ones that put the emphasis on weighing impacts. Convince me why your argument matters more and point out how your logic and statistics are stronger than your opponent's, and you'll do well. Also, speaking with some emphasis and intonation can only help you.

I'd be happy at the end of rounds to answer questions related to your round! Remember to relax and have fun and everyone will enjoy our rounds much better.

Hello! I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard College debating in APDA with experience judging PF, World Schools, and APDA.

Be polite and respectful during rounds.

If possible arrive early!

General debate best practices:

I care more about warranting than about evidence, just quoting a New York Times article is not enough to convince me of your argument.

I appreciate off time road-maps and clear side-posting, but it will not negatively affect you if you do not do these things.

Weighing is important! Please explicitly weigh why an argument is more important than your opponents.

For LD:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I will not evaluate theory or ks, so don't read them.

Please think through the implications of your framework and whether or not they are actually different. If all of your arguments can be made under your opponent's framework, then the debate over framework most likely doesn't actually matter.

i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 5th year coaching @ greenhill, and my first year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22)]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com. would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

7 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr. In principle, this is also true for your 2ARs. if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds.

MTHS ‘22 | WIT ‘26

Add me to the email chain: nilaypatel245@gmail.com

TL;DR

1- Policy and IDPOL/Common Ks/KAFFs, Traditional

2 - TT/Theory

3 - Baudrillard, Uncommon K’s

Strike - Unfair/Uncoordinated cases (i.e. Friv Theory, Spiked Trix)

Hey! I am Nilay Patel, and I debated in LD for 4 years in high school. I also dabbled in other debate events, but I am primarily an LDer. As for judging, I am typically a tabula rasa judge, but I do have some preferences (mainly for understanding purposes).

I have been out of the circuit ever since I stopped debating, so I may be a rusty judge. So, please spread concisely, and make your docs easy to understand. Also, I have not looked at the literature for this topic at all, so lean towards the side of explaining more than less.

Traditional - If you/your opponent is a traditional debater, I will err on the side of a traditional debate unless it is discussed otherwise. I believe that all tech debaters should learn how to debate traditionally, but not all traditional debaters need to learn how to debate tech. I also am very well versed in traditional debate.

Policy - I can understand all sorts of Policy (CPs, Plans, DAs, etc.). I personally did not read too much Policy in high school, but I don’t have trouble understanding it. Also, the cross-applications are somewhat straightforward, so I’ll be able to follow along. Not

Truth Testing/Trix - I really love Truth Testing frameworks, as it allows for a unique debate style to the debate round. Some unique paradoxes/a unique nailbomb AC really make me happy. However, I do not like arguments such as “Do not evaluate anything past the 1N”. Based on my debating philosophy, I will evaluate it, but a simple theory shell will probably make me err to the shell.

Ks - I read a few Ks in high school (such as Model Minority and Psychoanalysis), so I understand how Ks can be used. However, if you are simply using a K to confuse your opponent, I most likely will be confused as well. So, please keep it clear. Also, typically in the debate rounds I have been in, the 2NR is where the Ks make or break the round. If you have a very clean 2NR, I will be very surprised, and may boost your speaker points. Also, to show me that you have read this, if you attach a picture of a Nilla Wafers box to your speech doc, I will boost your speaker points by 0.2.

Theory - I default to YES RVIs, Competing Interps, and Drop the Debater. This doesn’t mean I wont change the way I evaluate the round if you make arguments for it, but I just start off with granting RVIs. As for the interpretations, they MUST be clear. Even if reasonability wins for the round, interpretations carry a massive weight on the debate round, so you cannot be lazy with your interps. Completely off topic, if you folks would like to play a 10 minute Rapid Chess game instead of doing the debate round, both of you must agree upon it, and the winner will a 29.8 while the loser will receive a 29.5 in speaks.

As always, any sort of intentional bigotry will not be tolerated, and will result in an L25 as well as a report to tab.

30 - You probably are deep elims in the tournament.
29.5 - You probably are breaking/are in early elims.
29 - You probably will have a positive record.
28.5 - You probably will have a negative record.

I am a pretty straightforward judge. I do not have hand‘s on forensic experience, however I do understand the core of speech and debate, and have judges multiple rounds of speech and debate divisions.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging for the last three years, mostly congressional debate and most recently public forum.

I value research, strong and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior throughout the entire round.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met.

I value strong evidence ably applied.

Spreading,I am comfortable with some speed however pronunciation must be coherent. In many cases debaters speak so fast that the mumble and almost whisper their words. Making it practically impossible to understand. There truly is not a need to rush, a well though out framework and argument can be done within the given time. A strong debater is one that can make the most of heir given time.

My general preferences are for you to be kind and respectful. If you start yelling or are overly aggressive it will not be to your benefit.

I flow by listening, and do not follow your written speech. Keep that in consideration.

You may send it to me for reference after the round has completed, and before I submit final comments.
Substance is important- defend your points clearly.

Please watch your times, I will only give :30 above time limit.

Also I do not give live feedback, prefer to take my time in providing detailed and useful comments on the ballot.

Good luck!

Vivian Perez
vmestevez@bellsouth.net

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF and LD debates since 2020.

You can consider me a lay/traditional judge for the most part. I will allow philosophy but only if the arguments are clearly articulated. No theory, tricks, prog or spreading at all.

I base my decision primarily on what transpires on the debate floor rather than background information and written cases. You may share references to verify the authenticity of your quotes if challenged by your opponent.

I understand the need to utilize the limited time available to render your arguments effectively. However, please balance that against the clarity of your communication. Unintelligible arguments will be largely unsuccessful.

I will typically allow you to finish your thought if time runs out, but within reason. I will extend the same courtesy to your opponent.

I will monitor your break allotment but expect you to do as well. I may gently remind you if you seem to be running significantly over your intended break time but it is ultimately your responsibility to manage.

The clarity and comprehensiveness of your case and overall framework is obviously important, but admittedly also the most prepared part of of the debate. Your ability to counter your opponent in cross examination and rebuttals, while keeping sight of your own framework, is often what determines the winning side.

I will entertain any arguments which are sound and logically presented, though internal consistency is essential. Likewise, I enjoy watching debaters of all styles and attitudes. An aggressive approach is great if it displays your passion for debate as long as you don’t cross the line into disrespect, while a composed demeanor can often be just as impressive. Think on your feet, stand your ground, be thoughtful, engaged, rational, coherent and organized…and enjoy the experience!

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years both nationally and state wide, so really I will understand most arguments. 

I prefer traditional debate but if you run anything progressive most likely I will know what it is. Have good and clear argumentation and prove to me you are the better debater.  

Hey my name’s Sarah (she/her) and I’m a first-year at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. I did debate all four years of high school, mainly focusing on LD but with experience in PF and World Schools as well.

As an LD debater I focused on traditional and policy debate and don't have much experience with K's or theory. That being said, I am open to hearing most kinds of arguments, and will do my best to evaluate them (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic or argument knowledge. If I don't understand the argument, even if you "won" on the flow, I won't vote for you.

Please don't spread.

Add me to the email chain - stpicciola1@gmail.com, but if you go too fast or aren't clear when reading I won't fill in the gaps for you.

Other things to keep in mind:

• IMPORTANT: debate should be an inclusive space. I will drop you and give you low speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory in any other way.
• For online debate I would prefer it if you have your camera on.
• I flow. Make your arguments clear and PLEASE signpost. If I don’t know where you are there is no way for me to be able to understand your argument or properly write it on my flow.
• Have good evidence ethics. I might ask for cards at the end if needed so please make sure your evidence actually says what you are saying it does and that you aren’t misconstruing or lying about what your author is saying.
• Your last speech NEEDS to consist of voters and weighing. If this doesn’t happen it makes the round very difficult to evaluate. Also no new arguments your last speech, I will not consider them.

• Bonus speaks if you make me laugh.

If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!

**harvard update: i default to reasonability on disclosure theory. it will be nearly impossible to prove to me that not having an updated wiki is a reason for someone to lose a debate round. running disclosure against small school debaters will get your speaks docked. just debate lol

kalinapierga@gmail.com For accessibility purposes I request that all speech docs be sent to an email chain if possible.

Debate background: I debated for Barrington High School and for NYU's Policy Team for one year, did mostly K debate in both.

Run whatever you want to run. Keep things clear & do thorough analytical work. Don't assume I am familiar with your literature base/args or that I will fill in gaps for you!

General:

If for any reason you feel unable to continue the round, feel free to stop time and let me know.

If you have any questions regarding any of the above, let me know before round. I'm happy to answer any other questions/concerns after round as well.

Harrison High School '17
Georgetown University '20
Raffipiliero@gmail.com

Harvard update: I've been out of debate for over a year, so my old paradigm is not as applicable - I'm far less ideological about argument content now that I'm not involved. However, I've left it here for reference.

I'll keep this brief-ish, since nobody enjoys reading these things. Do what you want and you will be fine - I probably place a greater premium on clarity/structure than most, but otherwise just have the debate you'd like.

But for (slightly) more detail: I'll just list 5 things to know about me:

1) Experience

I was very involved in debate for a 9-year stretch (2012-2021) in both LD and Policy, as both a coach and competitor (was in TOC elims/NDT elims, led DebateDrills coaching for 5 years, etc.). I debated mostly on the national circuit and read mostly policy arguments, with some Kritik arguments sprinkled in.

However, I haven't been at all involved lately: I haven't judged for 2 years and haven't thought about debate at all for 1+ years.

Currently, I work full-time at Harvard on foreign policy and international security-related work, so I'll be very up on anything related to current events/politics/foreign policy/etc. But I have not thought about the topic or cut cards on it.

So: you don't need to slow down, and I trust myself to still flow well/keep up with whatever debate you want to have. But, I don't bring any knowledge of the topic or any "meta" since 2021, so it will behoove you to explain any new concepts well.

2) Hard rules

The only rules I have are ones that I expect to never be relevant: No "isms," nothing that makes the debate unsafe, etc.

The only thing that may be slightly different for me than other judges is that I won't evaluate personal attacks/accusations about out of round behavior. So: nothing about the opponents' preferences, appearance, behavior, etc. If you're not sure, ask before the round - I will also make it obvious that I'm not flowing if this happens.

Otherwise, it's your debate and you should expect me to be a disinterested/neutral audience.

3) Views on form

I did college policy, so speed is absolutely fine. You won't go too fast for me. However, in a significant percentage of debates I judge, clarity is an issue. If I can't understand every word you say on tags and the vast majority on cards, I'll let you know. If I have to keep saying clear, don't expect good speaks.

Debate is a communication activity - I could never understand why some judges flow off the speech doc, pretend they understood arguments they couldn't flow, etc. So: do prioritize clarity in both delivery and structure. No judge will ever complain that you numbered your arguments, slowed down and inflected, etc. These things are essential to comprehension.

Too many speeches are scripted. If you're "autopiloting" a significant portion of the 2NR/2AR without responding to your opponents' arguments, your speaks won't be great. I'll consciously give you better points if you give a 2NR/2AR without your laptop.

4) Views on content

The biggest thing I can emphasize is that you should have the debate you want to have. My defaults are just that: defaults. Debating can change any of my views. That being said, all of us have biases, so I'll try to be upfront about them.

I'm theoretically fine with any type of debate you want to have (Kritik, Policy, etc.). The only strong views I have are ostensibly content-agnostic: I place a lot of weight on evidence, and I probably apply a stronger threshold than most in what counts as an argument. If I can't explain it back to the other team, I won't vote for it even if "dropped." But: this may make me worse for tricks debate, unevidenced Kritik arguments, etc. - I don't harbor an ideological bias against them per se, but given my preferences for explanation/evidence, they may be less likely to succeed.

If history is any guide, I've historically judged a lot of policy vs. policy debates, and a fair number of "clash" debates. I'm probably best at judging those debates, and worse at judging K vs. K debates. If you're a K team in a clash round, you shouldn't worry that my policy background will hurt you. If anything, I think most policy teams aren't very good at answering K arguments, and I'm probably 50/50 on how I vote in T/Framework debates.

5) Speaker points

I probably average around a 28-28.5, but will go as low as 27 and high as 29.5. I'll shamelessly inflate speaks if you're clear, give structured speeches, and debate off your flow and not a script. And no, you can't ask for a 30.

Updated 3/29/2023

Table of Contents:

1. Who am I?
2. Round Logistical Information
3. TL:DR
4. Public Forum
5. Lincoln-Douglas and Policy
6. Congress
7. Speech in general
8. Extemp specifically

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas, and have held this position since August 2020. Before that, I was a college student at the University of Minnesota where I ran our NPDA team (think extemp policy) and coached Public Forum for The Lakeville Debate Team from 2016 through 2020. In high school, I competed in Public Forum and Congress for Madison Memorial High School in Madison, WI.

I also run a summer institute for Public Forum at the University of Minnesota called Public Forum Boot Camp. Our website is here!

Round Logistical Information

Please make an email chain. Put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com (for PF debates) and bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on all email chains. Please use the following format in the subject line: "Round X Flight A/B, Tournament Name, School XX A/N 1, School YY A/N 2"

If I am judging you in PF or LD, you should create an email chain, send speech docs directly before the speech with evidence (not your analytics or paraphrasing) read during the speech in that document, in a format that does not permit you to edit the document after it is sent so that I can evaluate claims about evidence made later in the round (and, no joke, so that we can prep you out). You will get better speaker points if evidence exchanges are done via the email chain. If you're interested in getting a speaker award, I would recommend you do this - otherwise, you'll probably get no more than a 28.8.

I will start the round no more than 5 minutes after I get to the room, and as close to the round start time as possible. If you show up late, especially if pairings have been out for half an hour, I'm not going to give you extra time to pre-flow your case. Generally, as soon as I open my laptop to the ballot screen and get out pens, paper, and my timer, I'm ready to go, and expect that you are too. Flight 2 - please do the coinflip, pre-flow, and set up the email chain during flight 1.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision. I encourage you to pay attention to the RFD, take notes, and ask questions after the RFD (while a) being respectful of the fact that I have just spent a lot of my time and energy evaluating the arguments you've made during the debate, and b) being cognizant of the fact that the tournament has to move on at some point). I will not disclose your speaker points, but I average around a 28.4.

TL;DR: Debate to win and have fun.

I have been involved with speech and debate since 2014. I think about debate a lot, judge often, work in tab at about 1-2 tournaments per month, and have a deep respect and appreciation for how difficult and time-consuming debate is.

I will evaluate arguments on a primarily technical level, though it's easy to win on the flow if your arguments come from a sound literature base and are more true. I strongly believe debate is a competitive academic game that teaches important real-world research, critical thinking, argumentation, and public speaking skills, and that debate's competitive nature ought be embraced rather than ignored.

I have no strong preferences on the arguments you read in round. I frequently become cranky in rounds that are poorly executed strategically, where teams are rude to each other, where evidence exchange/prep time takes far longer than the allotted time, and those rounds with bad arguments (bad meaning: constructed from poor evidence, missing critical internal links, etc.). I strongly enjoy judging debaters that work hard, no matter the strategy.

Please be kind to both me and your opponents. We're all here to have a good time, and I'm very over the disdain with which many feel obligated to treat their opponents or their arguments during rounds. I am a terrible judge for you if you're not trying your best and engaging constructively with your opponents.

PF-specific:

• I'm a relatively typical tech-oriented judge. I want to see well-researched debates about the topic with lots of analysis of evidence and clash. I have been known to destroy the speaker points of teams who do not debate about the topic.
• I have no issue with speed. I have a tremendous issue with clarity. I will not flow off of a speech document. I will not be able to keep up with analytics or paraphrasing delivered quicker than a fast conversation.
• Most circuit paraphrasing I see is academically dishonest and more teams should be willing to stake the round on "that's not what your evidence says". At minimum, you should have a doc with evidence ready to send before every speech. I would strongly prefer cut cards read every time you introduce a new piece of evidence.
• If you are reading evidence that is less than 2 sentences long or takes you less than 10 seconds to read, reconsider. Make fewer arguments, but read more evidence to support those arguments that are really good.
• In PF in particular, I would rather not listen to theory, though if that's the debate you want to have, I'm very confident in my ability to evaluate the debate. Your speaker points will go down if you initiate a theory debate in PF.
• Critical arguments, structural violence contentions, and/or Ks with alternatives are all fine with me. You still need to win a link and an impact to win the debate. A mere discussion of structural violence is not, in and of itself, an impact. I would strongly prefer these arguments be related to the topic.
• Second rebuttal should probably begin to condense the debate. First summary should almost definitely begin to condense the debate. If second summary goes for everything, there is an 80% chance that the first speaking team will win the debate.
• I do not understand what the phrase "sticky defense" means, and at this point, I'm too afraid to ask. If your opponent has made an argument after the constructive speeches, you must respond to that argument in the speech immediately following your opponents having made that argument. If you do not, I will proceed as if you have conceded that argument. If your opponent has failed to respond to an argument and you want me to vote on it, it should be a substantial portion of your speech. You cannot extend an argument from the rebuttal to the final focus and expect me to vote on the argument.
• Weighing, defined as argument comparison, should be derived from that argument's relative strength of link and the magnitude of that argument's impact. Please do lots of weighing.

LD/CX-specific:

• I will flow the debate carefully. I will not flow off of a speech doc, and I flow on paper, which means that I need pen time. If you're reading analytics or your theory blocks, slow down.
• I will disclose a winner and loser and give a complete RFD. I will not disclose your speaker points. I average a 28.4.
• More than fine with traditional LD and policy strategies, including values and value criterion, plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and case arguments.
• I'm fine with theory, but you can't go your top speed and expect me to catch everything. I use the doc to read evidence - not to backflow your analytics. I have a soft spot for creative "we meet" arguments and probably give more weight to well-executed reasonability claims/defensive theory arguments than many judges in the LD/CX pool. I have no predispositions for or against any particular paradigm issues - judge instruction on theory is paramount.
• Also fine with kritiks. K's should isolate links that are more specific to the affirmative method, mindset, or fiated policy action, rather than being generic topic links. Alternatives should do something. Affs should debate the alt more.
• IVIs are not the first layer of the debate just because you have called something an IVI. IVIs need to include an impact and comparative weighing just like any other argument. Otherwise, every argument you make should be labeled as an IVI because it would just come first, and that's obviously silly.
• Less familiar with arguments featuring identity-based positions or postmodern philosophy, but I'm not ideologically opposed to them. I would recommend that you identify an external impact that your advocacy solves rather than claiming your argument is "the root cause" of theirs or something nebulous like "violence", because that quickly becomes cyclical and difficult to resolve.
• If your strategy relies on one or more hidden tricks, I would strike me. Tricks are any strategies relying on the other team conceding claims without warrants in order to win the debate, especially including claims hidden in the middle of card text or tags without proper oral signposting. I will take great pleasure in demolishing your speaker points for introducing such arguments, and laugh if and when you complain about it. Strategies that rely on silly arguments (i.e., we don't know what words mean so negate, we can't determine right or wrong so negate, plan flaw the US is a land mass, etc.) I am more amenable to, provided that you are clearly "warranting" them in the first speech.

Congress-specific:

• Please fully warrant arguments during your speeches. Please clash with other speakers that came before you. You should think of yourself as "working with" your side to advance debate on the item on the floor.
• Rehash is bad, argument synthesis is good. If you are restating an argument that came before you, that's bad. If you are adding information to the debate, that's good. The worst part of Congress is the exceptionally lazy and substandard warranting and argument synthesis that happens during most Congressional debate rounds.
• I value content more than many judges, but I still care about your delivery, and it can influence your rank.
• Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. This is apparently an unpopular opinion among competitors, but it is a hill I'm willing to die on. People prepared to do more debate are more likely to do well in front of me.
• Please don't yell at each other during questioning.
• The PO will start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.
• This is less of a paradigm issue, but here's my hot take: Congress would be better if each chamber were 10 students with an adult PO debating one item for no more than 75 minutes each, with the chambers rotating as if it were a speech tournament. Do with this information what you will.

Speech, in general:

• I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.
• I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)
• Regardless of your rank, I deeply appreciate the work and thought you put into your pieces. I will generally enjoy pieces that have been carefully put together.
• I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background.
• I love judging POI. I think it's so cool.

Extemp specifically:

• I expect to see you framing the question in your introduction. The most effective speeches synthesize current events into a concise bit of background information that answers the question: "why ask this question in the first place?"
• I appreciate technical flourishes in Extemp: truly creative AGDs, clever transitions, and mic drop moments at the end of speeches. In excellent rooms, these will probably make the difference (plus the quality of your introduction and your overall approach to the question).
• I need you to give me impacts and bring your analysis back to the language of the question. Impact work is severely under-utilized in Extemp.

Hello Everyone!

I am a parent judge. Here are a few suggestions

1. Manage time properly
2. Speak clearly
3. Sometimes in order to finish in the given time, students speak very fast to cover all the content/arguments and because of that the speech is hard to follow and understand. Make my job easier and I will give higher speaks
4. Make sure speeches are organized - easier to make a point
5. BE RESPECTFUL. Don't be rude or talk over your opponents. Don't be blatantly racist, sexist, etc. I'll try to give you the benefit of doubt where possible but it shouldn't come to that.
6. 3 fleshed out points are better than 7 loose and weak arguments. Quality is always better than quantity

Lastly, make sure to have fun!

Houston Memorial ’20

Andrewqin02@gmail.com for sdocs

Update for Harvard RR and Harvard: Haven't thought about debate in a really long time; go a LOT slower and explain topic jargon more. I will probably flow using the doc so might miss stuff if you try to randomly extemp tricks or something. To be clear, I do not know this topic in the slightest, nor the core arguments. EXPLAIN WELL!

I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. I try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making.

Quick Pref Sheet:

Theory – 1

LARP – 2

Phil – 2

K – 3

Tricks – 4 (I can judge it, but the warranting on these arguments is just atrocious enough that it makes bad decisions much more likely)

General Notes:

· CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

· Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

· I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

· Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

· AD HOMS: I really really really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

· High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

· Be nice to novices and traditional debaters.

· I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

Theory:

· Defaults: C/I, Drop the Arg, Fairness/Education are voters, No RVIs

· Friv theory and theory purely for strategy = 100% fine. I heavily prefer theory centered on round and disclosure abuse (spec status, AFC, CSA, disclose round reports, etc) as opposed to theory on clothing or Zoom styles (shoes theory).

· PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY SHELLS AND STANDARDS! If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.

LARP:

· I do not default to judge kick if it’s condo.

Phil:

· Understand most of the traditional LD canon – Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas (somewhat), I-Law, Constitution, etc.

· I think I’d be fine in the back of most phil debates, but be sure to explain the phil well. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

· Postmodern and critical phil like Semiocap – I probably am not the best at adjudicating these, but I’ll try my best.

· Default epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

· SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS AND INFLECT! If I don’t catch a trick, I won’t backflow for you.

· Default: Truth Testing, Presumption/Permiss Negate.

· Explain and weigh the tricks well – The sillier the argument, the lower the threshold for the response. Not a huge fan of blippy aprioris and the like, but if it’s won, I suppose I’ll vote on it.

· Prefer you to be straight-up in CX with tricks.

K:

· I’m familiar with a decent amount of Ks: Queerpess, Afropess, Settcol, some Weheliye, Warren, some Deleuze, etc.

· Overviews are helpful, but please do good line by line work – I won’t cross-apply your overview to every possible argument for you.

K Affs:

· Never really understood these very much but I’ll try my best.

· I prioritize technical ability – This means even if the 1AR and 2AR have good overviews explaining your position, you need to explain how it directly interacts with 2NR arguments.

· If it’s a K v K (anything other than cap) debate, I will probably be lost unless the ballot story is very clear.

Hello! I am a parent judge. This will be my third tournament judging. I have judged Just Talk, Duo Interpretation, Impromptu and Extemporaneous debates.

General approach to judging:

· The argument presented most have a flow, showcasing logic and clarity.

· The argument most be convincing, backed up by evidence and examples.

· Speak clearly, pace yourself.

· Engage with the audience through eye contact and attentiveness.

· A good debate requires for both debaters to be respectful of each other.

Most of all, enjoy the moment.

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

For email chain: empireofme@gmail.com

currently teach and coach debate at Saint Mary's Hall in San Antonio.

experience:

high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united
college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio
coaching: 2 years coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, coached nine years as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx. 1.5 years as the director of speech and debate at San Marcos High School, 2.5 years as director of speech and debate at James Madison High School... currently the director of debate at Saint Mary's Hall.

former writer/ researcher for wisecrack: this does not help you.

***note: please don't call me Matt or Matthew, it is jarring and distracts me. If you must refer to me by name please call me reichle [rike-lee].

(updated sections are marked with a *)

*TOP SHELF COMMENT*

Please, please, please slow down a bit, stress clarity when speaking, and give me pen time during analytic/ theoretical arguments. I AM NOT FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE SPEECH DOCUMENT--I genuinely believe that debate is a communicative activity and I should not have to rely on the speech document to decipher the arguments you are making. If this sounds real grouchy and sounds like "get off my lawn" old man talk... fair enough.

What I mean is this: I like to think that I am working hard to listen and think during the debate and looking up from my flow makes me think about all sorts of things that are not helpful for the debate... (the posters in the room, fashion choices, the last few words of episode 12 of Andor, the amount of Hominy I should add to Pazole... etc.)... all sorts of things that are not helpful for your decision. So help me out a bit. Please.

***The Rest***

*Digital Debates:

Please consider the medium and slow down a bit/ be more purposeful or aware of clarity--the added noises of a house (animals, small children, sirens, etc.) make it a bit harder for me to hear sometimes.

Please try to not talk over one another in cross-examination: it hurts my head.

*proclamation:
I proclaim, that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (I suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment) . I understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and I am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that I am lucky enough to judge. I am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that I afford members of a writing group--and as such I am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect.

Ultimately debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.

I debated for four years in the mid-to-late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.

*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me. The more depth and explanation the better.

*strategy is also something that I reward. I would like to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and I don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. Either way: the story of the round is important to me and I would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). I think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case I am missing something. Illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.


*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters. I flow the entire round (including as much of the the text of the evidence as I can get) unless I know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.

Topicality—I don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is a viable strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.

*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.

Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.

*theory: I need to flow. I can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. Also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.


*paperless issues: prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer/ when you are ready to email your cards (not continue to write blocks as you 'send' your email). Completely understandable if you send the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. Learn to send evidence to a speech document.


It becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how I view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. It seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.

While the formula will apply to some extent I would like to say that i am in every way honest when I say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. Do this and I say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. Be the debater that you are, not who you think I want you to be.

That being said; this is who I assume you should be: kind. Be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. There is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.


have fun. have a nice year.

email:scrodgers22@gmail.com

**I am notoriously bad at remembering to put comments and RFD's in these days so if I don't get to it before the tournament closes and you would like feedback, please email me (^) w/ the subject line of "LD round x at x tournament" and I will send you my RFD and feedback if you would like. If I give an oral RFD-you should take notes and not expect me to email that to you. I want this to be as educational for you as it possibly can be so please ask q's if you have them!

Hi! my name is Shannon Rodgers (she/her) and I was an LD debater for 3 years at Oakland Catholic in Pittsburgh, which was a relatively traditional circuit so I typically tend to favor rounds that lean more traditional. Having said that, I am ok with a progressive round if it is keeping with the "theme" of the rest of the tournament and you and your opponent both agree to a progressive round. Additionally I will permit you to spread however you must share your constructive/cards/etc. with me via email, flash, or shared document prior to the start of the round if you choose to spread.

Another little side note: I coached novices all of last year so my feedback tends to be less of my opinions on the round and more technical and strategical stuff I notice throughout the round.

How to win in my rounds:

~Overall. I do not care what you do/ run in the round so long as you explain it well and do not try to create an unfair debate space.

~Make the round easy for me to follow--if you and your partner create a sloppy round it is impossible for me to come up with a clear verdict because I will be confused as to what I just witnessed.
~I love a good value debate and I will weigh all arguments from both sides under the winning value structure so make sure you don't disregard the value structure. Additionally, if you don't understand your opponents value structure, use cross-ex to figure it out; if I am telling you a value debate is important in this round do not spend 3 minutes trying to trap your opponent during cross instead of figuring out their understanding and usage of their value structure!

~I also find theory debate really interesting, but you must explain it well and make it applicable to the round for me to buy it.

~If you gain substantial offense in cross-ex and you want me to weigh it in the round, you must bring it up in the speech immediately following cross because I will not be flowing cross

~Impact your arguments. It is your job as a debater to tell me why I care about some stat you just told me; if you don't tell me why I should care, I won't care.

~Dropped arguments will only effect the decision if your opponent brings up the dropped argument and makes it evident to me why that argument was important both as a claim and as an impact

~I care about voting issues (voters)--be confident and tell me why you won, especially if you think you won on a point that was not heavily debated throughout the round

~I will be voting off of the flow. Make this easy for me--if you're extending an argument tell me, I will not do this work for you. Also, do not respond to an opponent's argument saying that their argument is non-unique or that your argument outweighs, again you need to tell me why; if you fail to tell me "why" this says to me as a judge "crap, my opponent is right and I have nothing to say in response to this point"

~I reserve the right to call for any evidence during the round or at the end if their is a disagreement over the validity of a card

Ways to lose in my rounds:

~Being a jerk--this pretty much goes without saying but if in anyway you are purposefully a jerk in a round (examples: spreading and running a K on a novice, intentionally misgendering your opponent, being blatantly racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, etc., or if you're a guy, mansplaining). You get the point, I want to see a nice, clean round that is based on merit and education, not on one person yelling or personally attacking their opponent

Side note:

~Some cases will contain sensitive subject matter. If you think your case may need a trigger warning, it probably does and if you are unsure, please ask me personally prior to the round. If there is a chance your case does contain sensitive subject matter, it is your responsibility to have a back-up case or at least a "PG" version of your case in the event that you opponent is uncomfortable with your initial case.

~More importantly than anything I just said, HAVE FUN! And if you have any questions after the round, please feel free to ask me in the cafeteria afterwards or email me; I will typically keep my flows!

**this is a personal opinion so take it with a grain of salt, but I am personally so over climate change debate or climate change being the single voting issue. Literally any and every resolution (both aff and neg) has a climate change impact to assume that affirming or negating a single resolution will save the world from climate change is nieve and unrealistic. I'm fine with climate change being one of many voting issues, but it should not be the one and only reason you win

*** I AM ALSO SO SO SO INCREDIBLY OVER EXTINCTION ARGUMENTS I WANT TO SCREAM EVERYTIME A ROUND COMES DOWN TO THAT. at this point its so non-unique and is something that we have come up with a way to link every topic and every case to extinction. I get it, I'm going to die by extinction, tell me why I should care about a policy for the here and now

I'm a traditional parent judge. I focus on how you present and lay your framework and how strongly you do your research to support your contentions.

I'll time you guys, but I suggest you time yourselves and your opponents.

I like debaters who speak clearly and seem confident. I do not like to see arrogance. During Cross exams- respect your opponent- do not cut or be rude ( I will count it negetive) .

Have questions reach me at moonroy2405@gmail.com

I'm a PhD (Philosophy) student and want to hear a coherent and compelling case. Help me make up my mind on the issue that you’re debating. Give me sound and cogent arguments, and you’re halfway there to receive my vote. Refute your opponent’s arguments and objections, and you’re mostly there. Defend your framework, make your case clear and easy to follow, and you’ll have my vote. However, if you give me flimsy premises and invalid arguments, build your case on unjustified assumptions, simply assume the correct framework, and commit informal fallacies in your debate, I’m afraid it’ll be game over for you.

DON'T SPREAD! Instead, I’d rather hear fewer arguments developed at a deeper level; the sheer volume of arguments is no substitute for substance.

In summary, to get my vote, make sure your arguments be bussin fr fr.

This is my first year judging. In order to judge you fairly, I must be able to hear and understand you. Please don't speak too fast and be sure to enunciate. More is not necessarily better when it is redundant. I want to give you full credit for the work that you've prepared so being able to follow your arguments is key. Any arguments that depend on justification of discriminatory ideas will impact my assessment of your performance. As I am new to the event, I will take more of a traditionalist approach, expecting to see the format followed as faithfully as possible.

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

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/coach a lil bit for Collegiate Academy in New York. My mother, Susan Chubrich Seep, is a very well decorated and long time debate coach, so I know the debate world very very well and I have, quite literally, spent my whole life at debate tournaments. I mostly ran performance/queer rage Ks in high school, if that matters to any of y'all.

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, unless itsbad spreading. I will say clear once, if I still can't understand you, I will be forced to stop flowing.I am not a fan of theory debate, if the entire round just devolves into theory I will personally be really annoyed (I do think it has a very valid place in debate and am always willing to listen to theory, just please dont let it take over the whole round). 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.

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 tell me you are running a counterplan before you run it. Yes, you can write a plan/CP as a traditional case, and with certain judges I encourage it, but if I am your judge you need to run it as a plan/CP and you need to tell me before your speech.

ROLL OF THE BALLOT:Others may disagree with me, but I will almost ALWAYS vote on the ROB overanything, even theory! HOWEVER, youneeeeeeedto extend it throughout the entire round! Also, please flesh it out. Give me some cards, or some good analytics, some performance, ANYTHING. I hate ROBs that are just one line.

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.

IRONY K'S: I feel the need to make an entire separate paragraph for this one because I have many thoughts.Comedy and satire belong and has a space in debate.THAT BEING SAID, If you are running an irony K just to be funny, it is pretty obvious to me as a judge that you are running it just to be the funny guy. Not a fan! Because Ireally, reallylike satire in debate, and think it can be run really well and win my ballot. I don't care if you're 0-5 in prelims,DO NOT THROW A ROUND WITH ME AS YOUR JUDGE. DO NOT RUN A FUNNY K JUST BECAUSE YOU AREN'T ADVANCING. IT IS RUDE! YOU CAN RUN AN IRONY K, BUT PLEASE MAKE IT WORTH MY TIME, YOUR OPPONENTS TIME, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, MAKE IT WORTHYOUR TIME.There is educational value in debate everywhere,except when you treat it like a joke.

THEORY: Hoo boy, many thoughts on this one! I think theory has a very important part in debate, but I really hate rounds that just turn into theory debate. Why are we arguing about the rules of debate, isn't the point of debate that there AREN'T any rules??? If you're going to run a shell, 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, because it probably wont.If you are running disclosure theory please please flesh it out because I personally hate disclosure theory and I need to see some very clear impacts for not disclosing.

TRICKS:Don't even try 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.

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):Also if your opponent drops the performance after their first speech you should call em out on it LOL.

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. I like giving debaters a silly way to win full speaks so here is a short list of ways you can win full speaks with me:

1. A perfect MC ride impression
2. Fit in any lyric from Limp Bizkit's "Break Stuff" in one of your speeches
3. Answer one cross ex question like Yoda (please don't do it for the entirety of cross tho that is really annoying)
4. Meow like a cat randomly out of no where

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

This is my first time judging! Debated in high school but haven't since 2018. I might not immediately understand top speeds, so a little slower would be great! Not sure if people still share speech docs but if so please include me.

Affiliations: Barrington high school

I debated LD on the local and nat circuits for four years at Barrington High School. Mostly local though.

Have fun! Don’t be mean. Read anything you want in front of me as long as it’s well-explained and warranted. Slow down for tags, authors, interps, numbers, and important issues in the final rebuttals. Don’t be sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. debate is a safe space and you are not welcome here if you intentionally hurt others. If you have any questions, please ask.

Speed/In-round things: Go as slow or as fast as you want, but please please please please please please be clear. I want an email chain. Please disclose otherwise. I'm good with flex prep just sort that out with your

Email: tanvisharan999@gmail.com

New Judge- Speak Slowly , Be clear and concise,

I will vote only for arguments I understand ,

Please be kind to opponent and have fun

I am an international student at Harvard. I have experience in APDA, BP, and the World Schools formats. Please be nice. Reasoning > Evidence

I will drop speaks every time you say something was conceded or dropped if it wasn’t actually conceded or dropped.

I tend to make decisions very quickly, so don't take this personally. Rounds can be very good and very close but still very clear.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: SEND THE AFF THE MOMENT OF THE SCHEDULED START TIME OF THE ROUND REGARDLESS OF THE FLIGHT. I DO NOT WANT TO BE WAITING WHATSOEVER TO RECEIVE THE AFF.

New Updates:

• Traditional rounds are great. In fact, I prefer the types of rounds where people just make smart and intuitive arguments instead of reading their blocks off the doc – I'll boost your speaks if you can execute such a strategy well.
• You would be best served going at 70% of your typical speed if you want me to actually catch your arguments. I'll boost your speaks if you can do so, too.
• Please record your speeches if you're debating online in case your internet cuts out. Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard any arguments that don't go through.
• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD. I broke at the TOC twice and currently attend Princeton '25.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

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

Some musings:

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

This paradigm was pretty sparse for a while, but I've decided these are pretty useful.

I debated in policy for four years in high-school. I debated at the University of Oklahoma for 4 years.

***** slow down in online debate.

*** LD Addendum's

I've been judging and coaching LD for about 4-5 years now at this point. I'm relatively cool with whatever you do. Tricks will probably be a harder sell with me, but I have and will vote on it if they're impacted out and made relevant. I probably have a higher inclination to lean towards rejecting the argument rather than the debater in most instances.

Pretty good for T on this topic.

** Most of this stuff is in relationship to policy debate.

Debate is up to the debaters. Do what you will with the debate, I will do my utmost best to evaluate the arguments in front of

I view debate largely as a set of questions I'm asked to resolve. Depending on how I answer those questions my ballot changes. I find debaters who effectively tell me which questions ought to come first, and how answering those questions informs the rest of the debate.

I'd like to think I don't have any wild idiosyncrasies as part of my judge habits, but here are some of my thoughts, they may or may not help you make a decision on where to pref me
Counter-plans

1. New Planks in the 2NC are probably bad.

2. I can be persuaded conditionally is bad if the negative gets a little too wild.

DA's][1. These are cool. Specific links are cool, but I understand the game. If you gotta run 10 generic links because the aff is small, then do what you gotta do.

K's

1. I'd like a little more explanation when you make an ontology claim. "Settler-colonialism is ontological," for example, is much more expansive than a 'politics doesn't succeed argument. Explain what you think settler-colonialism is and how it influences society, and then explain why that informs what forms of politics are successful or violent. This will make it much easier to evaluate your argument!

2. Be clear about what your FW argument is. 9/10 times its helpful to be clear.

3. Reference the aff. if I could imagine the 2nc being read against another aff with no changes, then your speaks will reflect that.

4. Permutation is probably not a negative argument.

Critical Affirmative's

1. Clear counter-interpretation/Counter-model tends to be a much better way to achieve my ballot than straight impact turns. Explain to me what clash happens in your model of the debate, and why that solves the neg's internal link. However, if the strategy is impact turns then make sure to spend time doing impact calculus.

2. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the performance of the 1ac solved the bad parts of the world. I view K-Aff's much like Policy affs. I.E. Explain how your model of politics would be good if exported.

3. I really do appreciate when teams apply their arguments in interesting and thoughtful ways. Regardless of you making a "new" argument, if you add your own bit of character to the argument I will appreciate the effort.

FW

1. I'm not as bad for FW as my debate choices would indicate. The way to get my ballot in the vein of Michigan GW, lots of clash and debate focused I/L's. Explain why the C/I collapses into an ever expansive interpretation., and why the affirmative can't square the circle of competion.

2. I am a bad judge for FW teams who are dismissive and don't respond to the affirmative. I think negative teams sometimes miss some basic responses to the affirmative in the pursuit of using academic language. Sometimes aff's just assume illogical things that you can point out, even if it seems simple! Don't ever think an argument is too simple or someone's argument sounds too smart to make a basic response!

3. I'm not a good judge for "Truth-testing means no aff"

Frivolous Theory

1. Not my cup of tea, but I'll vote on it. It will be reflected in your speaks tho.

-------- email chain: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com --------

Hi there! My name's Zoe - I was a coach at Southwest Speech and Debate Institute '22 and now I coach at Brophy. I debated LD for four years at ACP, attended nats 3 times, and now dabble in college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once. Feel free to email any questions you may have after the round and I'd love to help!

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

Defaults-

I'll disclose speaks if you ask

Flex prep fine

tech > truth

FW- util if nothing is read

comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

reasonability > competing interps

DTD < DTA this can change easily

*****these can change easily if you explain to me why

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

Spec stuff: I'll analyze anything but for specific scoring

phil- 1

k- 2

da, plan, cp- 2

tricks- 2 (I don't mind as long as you warrant it--which could literally be a one sentence explanation--ask preround on any specifics)

theory- 4 (very high threshold, see below)

Fw- very important for me in lay. Please just collapse if the fw's are super similar (ie consequentialism vs util or social justice vs structural violence). The NC doesn't have to read fw if it's the same as the aff's. FW should be addressed in every speech at the top, preferably

K- K’s are cool but I have a very high threshold for K affs. The K must have a link to the topic/debater/round. Running a nontopical K aff in front of me is not the best strategy unless done incredibly well. Topical Ks are fine by me if warranted properly. Make sure to explain the K if you’re reading a complex one. I mostly know foucault, anthropocentrism, set col, baudy, cap, fem, and queer myself but as long as you warrant it I can follow anything.

DA- Please don’t run 3+ DA’s in front of me just to win on substance. Run a couple well warranted ones if you want or a few short ones is fine

Plan- Plans are cool, especially a unique one. Make sure it's not nontopical and/or extratopical, that's a pet peeve of mine. Don't run a PIC as a plan on the aff please (ie Iron Dome CP from the LAWs topic but just on the aff).

CP- I’ve grown to dislike CPs because they are either a. A super common CP that everyone reads on this topic (ie UBI CP on the fjg topic) or B. Not well-warranted (which makes the CP feel like just another argument you’re throwing out for substance). Feel free to run a decent CP. Not a fan of PICs in most cases and will slant heavily aff if they read PICs bad theory. Multiple condo CPs will probably get a drop if its at all possible

Phil- Phil is awesome, literally anything in any form is cool

Theory- Very low tolerance for theory. What this means--I'll evaluate one or two legitimate shells but I don't want a theory-centered debate or frivolous (3+) shells. Only want to see it for valid abuse. If you read two theory shells in the 1nr and then just concede theory in the 2nr I will err heavily on aff if they even do a half decent job of answering anything or just say RVIs. Don't use theory as some strategic ploy, use it to legitimately uncover abuse (or like very obviously as a joke thrown in with actual argumentation as well).

Tricks- I think it's fine as long as I as the judge can determine what the tricks are and you actually tell me how to evaluate it, however blippy that explanation may be. Just give some semblance of a warrant in the rebuttal. Tricks don't need to be in the doc as long as they're restated and warranted in the rebuttal

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

General:

Not timing unless you ask me to

Sitting or standing doesn't matter

No new in the 2nr/2ar args please

No using rest of cross for prep

Make the round a nice experience for everyone involved. Be nice during cross, especially. I will tank speaks for blatant rudeness in any form in the round. (sarcasm differs from rudeness- the former I am fine with and enjoy)

PLEASE WEIGH IN YOUR LAST SPEECH. Show why your evidence/impact is better, use terms like magnitude and scope, it’ll make my ballot super easy. Weighing throughout the round is good but last speech like a good 30 second chunk should be impact weighing and framework analysis.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, reading cards is on prep

Sharing cases- you get a 5 min timer. If you're unable to post by then I'm taking it out of prep. Speech drop is simple, or I have my email in my paradigm. if you ask for my email I take off speaks

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Start at 26 speaks and go up from there, 25 for blatant rudeness, racism, etc. 30 if you get me any blended dutch rebel (gift card works too i suppose)

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

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I know how PF works and have tried it at a few tournaments. I think the main difference is that I look at framework more, so like you can read structural violence and I'll evaluate it but I default to util. I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, but if you happen to have me as your judge you could toy around with some progressive, it's just slightly bothersome if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff. Be warned that reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. please don't excessively talk over each other keep it at least a tad civil

- def/off aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or it's nonexistent in final focus

- no new arguments in final focus

- any of your other typical pf judge norms I'll follow if you ask me before

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

Policy- see LD paradigm. I know most of the caveats but not like extensively (like aff/neg burdens, time frames, solvency, inherency, harms, etc). probably a tech judge but not as much as an 8 year policy coach.

BQ-also refer to my LD/PF paradigm as you will. I did BQ before I can judge it. that's about it.

Congress-

- congressional debate doesn't denote the use of debate terminology like "extend" "outweigh" or "vote aff." if I hear these I'm dropping your speech/round ranks. I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. construction > content

- giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first. you have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well

- please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. at least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (it's very easy to fake a speech, c'mon).

- there is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. if you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. if it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. if you're a seasoned PO and don't do very well don't expect to make ranks

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

For Varsity States 2023:

Weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument. Remember that FW is a weighing mechanism and NOT offense.

The rest of the stuff in my paradigm is irrelevant so no need to read beyond this :)

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks strike me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time or just cuz and that annoys me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

Background: Philosophy, History, and English

Preferences:
PLEASE no progressive debate or spreading. Impress me with your clear, concise, well-supported arguments. If you spread or speak too quickly, I will miss something and that's not to your benefit. I don't pre-read cases. I will only judge based on what I hear in the round. In the end, it's your job to convince me that your arguments are strongest. Listen to your opponent and respond to their arguments.

Debate the resolution. If you're attempting a kritik, make sure it's topical.

Demonstrate your research skills. Keep it accurate and cite reputable sources.

Be thoughtful and kind to one another. I value civility.

I have experience judging LD and PF in the last two years.

· I prefer a slower debate, it allows for a more involved, persuasive, and all-around better style of speaking and debating. Debaters should make sure that their speech is clear and understandable.

· A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

· Rebuttals should address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

· Citations as evidence are preferred. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples.

· Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

· The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method.

· To win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It’s hard to be in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent.

In summary, putting forth good arguments at a reasonable and understanding pace, answering opponents arguments with better evidence, logical and staying on topic will be the criteria for the winner of the round.

For LD: I vote based on framework, cross-ex/rebuttal, and impact. Convince me that your value and value criterion are logical and your opponent's are not. Refute all of your opponent's contentions and disprove your opponent's refutations of your arguments- my flow will track this closely. Impact, impact, IMPACT! In a close debate, impact is so important and will be my deciding factor. Please DO NOT spread. The quality, pace and coherence of your speaking affects how convincing your argument is, and will therefore contribute to my decision. If you are blatantly aggressive or disrespectful to your opponent including interrupting them during cross-ex, using rude language, rolling your eyes, etc., you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. I expect you to be confident/assertive yet always respectful in all parts of the debate.

For platform events (OO, Informative): I look for a well-researched speech with natural, fluid physical delivery. As a former platform competitor, I believe content is an extremely overlooked aspect of these events, so your writing style and quality will matter a lot to me. Speeches with unique topics as well as impactful implications will always be at the top of my ranks. (Info-specific: Outstanding VAs are not enough to automatically earn the 1. Content and vocal/physical delivery are equally, if not more important. However, if two competitors are very close in rank, the competitor with better VAs will have the edge.)

For extemp: I look for speeches with credible and diverse sources, a clear and easy to follow structure, and excellent vocal and physical delivery. While this event is more research and quick-thinking focused, do not underestimate the importance of vocal quality and hand gestures. When two speakers are very close in terms of technical extemp skills on my ballot, the speaker with the better delivery will win.

For interp: Characters must be easy to distinguish from each other. I always appreciate original characterizations whose voices and blocking do not seem to follow the stereotypical, easy interp characters. Natural, seamless pops are something I'll look for. (POI-specific: I'll look for unique uses of the binder as a prop and how much it aids the delivery.) Above all, whether your piece is dramatic or humorous, there should be purpose to your piece: to bring attention to an issue you care about or share your experiences. If I do not understand the reasoning behind your script choice, odds are I won't comprehend your performance as well either.

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

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

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks: No.

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

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

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

Public Forum Debate

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas Debate

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

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

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

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

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

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speak slowly and always explicitly weigh. I don't appreciate theory or spreading.

The things:

HS: *Npiredebate@gmail.com

College** Hoyadebate@gmail.com and npiredebate@gmail.com

I coach Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

I think affs that are unrelated to the topic are lazy.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy is just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature as will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

DA

Not much needed to be said here. Have good internal link analysis. You don't need to be a poly sci major, just be knowledgeable about what you're reading. Econ, Biz Con and of course Heg are among my favorites here.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

T-USFG/FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

I used to judge on the circuit quite a bit, but I've largely been away from debate for the last couple of years.

If you're running something really esoteric, I'm not the judge for you. Critical positions? Not my forte. I'm ok with old school LARP, but I may miss nuances in tricks and theory.

That being said, I'll be as tab as possible, short of picking up heinous anti-social positions.

Please add me to email chains: jacob316@gmail.com

Note for King: Changes were made to quick prefs, the K Aff section, and the speaks section. Removed some old stuff I thought wasn't necessary.

Email: ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

People who've influenced the way I think about debate: Amrita Chakladar, David Asafu-Adjaye, Rohan Rao, Jackson Hanna, Raffi Piliero, Ben Erdmann, Patrick Fox, Brett Cryan.

TL;DR: I'll vote on literally any argument that isn't exclusionary - every belief that I have in this paradigm is changeable. Read cars theory or Afropess - I do not care. The only immutable opinion I have about debate is that everything is debatable. The level of dogmatism that some judges have is repugnant. My number one priority is to avoid judge intervention.

The level of explanation/warranting for an argument in the 2NR/2AR is proportional to how well the previous speech answered it. Conceded arguments have lower thresholds for extension, and once extended are categorically true. I will not vote on arguments that do not have warrants or arguments I do not understand. I will factor conceded arguments in earlier rebuttals if I have to.

Go as fast as you want, but slow down to like 90% on analytics and tags. Send everything you can on the doc. If you're unclear I will yell clear twice and after that, I will stop flowing until you're clear again. I am an above-average flower but I am not perfect. I will catch anything you extempt.

Tech > Truth, though I can be convinced otherwise.

Relatively unconvinced by ethos, but the effect is probably non-zero.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. will not be tolerated. I will give you an L20, yell at you, contact tab, and your coach.

Pref Shortcut

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Policy v K - 2

Policy v Policy - 3

K v K - 4

Trad - Strike (I am serious.)

Speaks

Not voting on speaks theory at Round Robins for obvious reasons. Good performances will be rewarded with generous speaks.

Goofiness/silliness is unconditionally rewarded with higher speaks. Please be funny.

Being mean or rude can be funny but don't make it personal.

Online

Please keep recordings of your speeches in case of internet issues. Do not start speeches without verbal or visual confirmation from me.

Defaults

These are easily changed.

DTD

Competing Interps

No RVIs

Fairness/Education Are Voters

Comparative Worlds

Permissibility/Presumption Negate (Presumption goes to the side of least change if the 2NR does not defend the squo)

Util

Epistemic Confidence

Kritik

The literature bases I am familiar with are SetCol (Tuck, Yang, Rifkin), Weheliye/Wynter, Hardt and Negri, Capitalism, Afropessimism (Warren, Wilderson), Foucault, Agamben, Deleuze, and Puar. I'm probably at least vaguely familiar with any other K that you read.

K bombs are underutilized (serial policy failure, fiat illusory, alt solves case, etc). There should be some indication that the alt is a floating PIK in the 1NC, preferably in the tag.

Ks of phil seem basically unwinnable without beating the 1AC syllogism. Threat construction Ks seem ridiculous absent winning that the 1AC internal link scenario is either non-existent or has a very low probability of occurring.

I am willing to vote on call out affs or arguments that criticize the practices of certain debaters outside of round (this should be obvious given the first part of this paradigm).

Ideal K 2NRs should extend impact defense on the case page along with indicts to risk analysis to make extinction outweighs significantly less convincing. Strategic pivoting will be rewarded with higher speaks.

The correct 2AR is almost always framework + extinction outweighs.

Theory

Weigh.

Meme-y shells like chess theory are welcome. CSA is getting boring.

Paradigm issues don't need to be extended if they're conceded.

Slow down on interps if you're extempting a theory shell.

I will assume my defaults if no paradigm issues are read and not evaluate new paradigm issues in the 2NR/2AR absent justified.

I know some of you guys got some crazy theory 2NRs for you to docbot (which is fine), but this does not mean you should go at an incomprehensible pace whenever you're reading all of the analytics under your "2NR - AT: Infinite Regress" block.

Topicality

I usually found this to be a pretty boring argument but it won't affect your speaks.

The 2AR must explicitly extend substantive offense in the 2AR (whether it is the RVI or case) when answering T. I will vote negative on presumption if the only route to the ballot the 2AR establishes is "I answered T".

Semantics 2NRs should probably have some sort of external impact besides just jurisdiction and there should be defense on 1AR pragmatic standards.

Phil

Very comfortable adjudicating these debates. New and interesting phil frameworks combined with efficient execution will be rewarded with high speaks.

I am familiar with Levinas, Kant, Virtue Ethics, Util, Contractarianism, Particularism, Skep, Rawls, Hobbes, Marxism, Deleuze, and Butler. Anything else I am probably at least vaguely familiar with.

Short overview explanations of your theory are good. Err on the side of over-explanation when extending your syllogism if your framework is super dense (the 1AR gets leeway, the 2AR does not).

Hijacks are underrated and should be probably in every 1NC/1AR. I find that they are underused, and usually not used at all even when they should be.

Tricks

Not voting on "eval after the 1AC" (thank Agastya and Adarsh). This is not because I hate the argument or am dogmatic, but because if my decision-making process assumes that I evaluate the debate after the 1AC, then it generates a logical contradiction that makes it impossible for me to vote on it. I am willing to explain this more if you ask. I am, however, willing to vote on it if is articulated as something like "evaluate every other sheet after the 1AC except for this argument", because it grants negative the ability to respond to it without creating a contradiction.

The resolved a priori is getting boring. Please read new, innovative, or funny tricks.

I find myself relatively adept at flowing tricks debate. Go as fast as you want (be clear) but slow down on complicated logic tricks like the Ravens' paradox, condo logic, etc.

If you read tricks and I end up wanting to defenestrate myself at the end of the 2AR you are getting incredibly low speaks.

Note: I do not think that definitional a prioris (resolved, affirm, redefinitions etc) are explicit offense under any role of the ballot that is not truth testing. If you go for an a priori without extending a truth testing role of the ballot, you need to generate external reasons as to why a prioris are offense for you.

LARP

I am a fan, just not the best at evaluating them. If your A-Strat is LARP, pref west-coast types higher than me.

I have a pretty decent understanding of IR. I'm comfortable evaluating heg debates.

I do not default judge kick - if you want me to, you need to tell me.

Link turns are not offense unless combined with a UQ claim. Cheaty counterplans seem to be more easily beaten by smart intrinsic permutations rather than theory arguments but I don't have an explicit preference for either one.

My favorite debates in this category are unintuitive impact turns (DeDev, Warming Good, Wipeout, etc.). If the 1AC is an econ advantage and the 1NC is 7 minutes of DeDev that will put me in a very good mood.

I'm not a fan of spamming blippy permutations in the 1AR, even against "cheaty" process counterplans. The words "perm do the counterplan" is not a complete argument and thus the threshold for 2NR response is significantly lower.

If it comes down to a dense competition debate please slow down and explain. I understand functional/textual competition in a vacuum but haven't judged these debates enough to be able to evaluate them at a super high level yet.

Evidence quality is proportional to the threshold your opponent has for responding to it.

2AR should be extending the aff. If you do not do this I will immediately vote negative on a risk of offense (obviously doesn't apply if the 2AR is going for condo or something).

Performance/K-Affs

Defend the topic or don't, I do not care. Just don't be generic and be prepared for framework.

I think most K affs deserve to lose to presumption but most 2NR presumption stories are very generic and not contextual to the aff. Saying "no spillover" for 30 seconds in the 2NR does not answer their solvency claims. I also find that K debate in LD tends to be very blippy - I am perfectly comfortable giving an RFD that's like "I did not catch this 3-word IVI in the 1AR so I'm not voting on it in the 2AR".

I'm 50/50 on framework. A very solid framework + presumption 2NR will make me happy. A very solid Cap K 2NR will also make me very happy.

Most framework 2NRs are incredibly generic and fail to provide a reason why debate is good. Fairness can be an impact, but it's usually significantly more convincing as an internal link to other impacts, like iteration, movements, or skills. The 2NR needs a reason why framework outweighs and turns the aff.

TVAs - these are not that helpful unless explained well. Carded TVAs seem to be relatively useless unless they are very specific to 1AC evidence. Analytic TVAs that pull lines from the aff are your best bet if you want to go for it in the 2NR.

SSD - usually framed super defensively. I think SSD is actually a very good way to mitigate impact turn offense but I have never seen 2NR reach this level of nuance. The 2NR should make sufficiency framing arguments (as well as with the TVA).

I am a huge fan of impact turns against K affs. I don't think that K affs usually answer them very well. Please read heg good, cap good, tech good, etc. These should be articulated as impact turns to their epistemology.

Another thing that I'll note about the above is I do not think that "your authors are bad" is an answer to heg good/cap good. It may be useful as a framing argument, but absent specific defense to things like CCS, SCS escalation, innovation, etc. then I don't see why I can't take these things to be true given there are delineated warrants provided as to why they are.

Evidence Ethics

I do not stop or stake rounds for evidence ethics violations or clipping. Read a theory shell or shut up. This also means that for something like clipping you should keep an audio recording to prove the violation to a shell. However, if I notice that clipping is occurring I will take note of it and assume a 100% risk of a violation to shells that indict clipping.

I can be convinced that evidence ethics violations are good. It is not my burden as a judge to assume that it is bad - that is on you.

The only thing I will stop rounds for is egregious cheating like communicating with coaches or other debaters for help during round. If you do that and I have definitive proof, I will stop the round, give you an L0, and contact tab to try to get you disqualified from the tournament. I will also inform people that you are a cheater.

Other Thoughts

Lying in CX is fine, just justify it. I think arguments that say "lying is bad" can be pretty convincing though.

I won't evaluate arguments that tell me to change the times of speeches (like change the 1AC from 6 minutes to 10 minutes) / evaluate arguments not made in speeches (i.e., an argument made during 1AR prep is not something I will flow and vote on, it must be made in the 1NC or 1AR, etc.).

If you have any questions/concerns about my decision after the round is over, please feel free to email me. Alternatively, if you send me a friend request on Facebook you can also ask me questions in Messenger.

I generally do not share speech documents with people I do not know, so if you ask I will probably say no. If debaters ask me not to disclose the content of a round or send speech documents from said round, I will not.

I do not accept post-rounding from people who did now flow the round. If you try to angrily post-round during RFD and you were not even in the room when the round occurred I will forego my will to be civil.

However, post-rounding is good and checks back against terrible judges who make bad decisions as long as it is done by the people who were present during the entirety of the round. If I have made a wrong decision, I should know about it so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. If a judge crumbles when asked to explain how they came to a conclusion, then that probably means they made the wrong decision.

\---( ° ͜ʖ ° )---/

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so trad circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, that it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 6ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

Hi! My name is Polina Udalova she/her (polinaudalova@gmail.com).

Be respectful and speak clearly, that is all I ask :)

Hi guys! I’m Sierra, and I’m a first year at Harvard. I did not participate in high school debate, but I am enjoying BP and APDA while in college.

Some general thoughts:

1. PLEASE WEIGH! I have no other method for evaluating which of two claims or impacts is more important if you do not tell me why it matters compared to other arguments.

2. Give clear mechanisms! Though I am a reasonable person, connect the dots and tell me explicitly why something is going to happen.

3. I appreciate sign posting! I do flow, but I am new to it, so knowing where we are in a speech is very helpful.

4. Speak clearly, and don’t speak too fast.

5. I will listen to and evaluate high-impact, low-probability impacts like nuclear war, but I don’t like them. From Matej Cerman’s paradigm: I’d rather hear a well thought out argument than “how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

6. I don’t know anything about theory, and your theory arguments simply won’t mean anything to me.

7. I do appreciate clever jokes in speeches if they are applicable. Make the debate fun for me please!

8. Be civil, respectful, and understand that competition is about more than victory.

I am more communication based. I prefer debaters who will prioritize what is important to them. I’m also an educator therefore I focus on the academic aspect of debate.

Hi, my name is Zee. I'm a parent judge, so don't go too fast and make your arguments clear.

I competed in a traditional Lincoln-Douglas circuit throughout high school and prefer to judge rounds that prioritize value debate, clash, and persuasiveness as opposed to spreading, card dumps, and heavy impact calc. With that being said, I am familiar with the progressive format and can follow its various strategies and quirks. Spreading is allowed, although I'd personally prefer not to see it, in favor of a slower, more thoughtful debate. Should you chose to spread, please be conscientious of your opponent and do your best to speak as clearly as possible, speed permitting.

I prefer traditional LD. Please don't spread! I'd prefer no Ks or theory. I prefer analytics over evidence. Please be polite and pleasant to your opponent and to your judges!

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

First time judge, with experience in LD from my high school years.

Coming back after five years, a lot of the esoteric and hyper-specific jargon is lost on me. I am not a lay judge, but if you're unable to articulate your positions, or give me a roadmap of the round without using terminology that the average individual would be able to discern, I will drop speaks.

I have a degree in Philosophy, Political Science, and Gender Studies, and as a result, am more than comfortable with the framework debate. If there is clash in framework, please do your best to address and weigh that clash. Give me clear, and distinct points where 1.) your framework better links to the value, 2.) your framework outweighs on some fundamental level (metaphysics if necessary). There is no framework that I think is unfair or out of bounds, so long as it's well reasoned and articulate.

Theory/T is not out of the realm of possibilities, but I don't default to theory for the round. I need you to prove that there is sufficient reason for theory to be a consideration i.e. prove to me that theory is necessary due to some unfair practice by your opponent. If you rush into theory because you don't have a strong grasp on the substance debate, I probably won't be favorable to your shells.

Kritiks were always my favorite part of debate, I think Aff K's are interesting and unique, so long as they link to the res in a meaningful way. Non-top K's can be cool, but there needs to be a reason for me to engage with the argument. If something is missing in the resolution, or excluded, give me a reason why that exclusion is necessary to address. K's on neg need to provide solvency, don't give me "status quo solves" because 1.) that's boring and I hate boring, and 2.) it gives the aff no ground to clash with, which makes the round muddier and also less fun.

If you pull up with a progressive case or an interesting argument, I will automatically be more interested in your position. Those are so much cooler, and much better to engage with than lay cases. If you pull up without a framework, I will automatically be less willing to vote for you. You're going to need to link really clearly into the opp framework.

If you want some higher speaks, here are some ways to do it, you'll get more points for each one:

+0.1 for making funny joke
+0.1 for being drippy
+0.5 for unironically defending marxist or anarchist positions
+1.0 for making a yugioh reference (if you say "blue-eyes white dragon", "dark magician", "shadow realm", or "its time to duel" you will lose 1.0 speaks I am not kidding that is not funny make a joke about the meta or something silly but get that normie garbage out of my face this is not a joke)
+1.0 for saying "goated with the sauce" without forcing it.

I'm fine with pretty much anything else, if you have any questions before the round, feel free to email me at jwilson5@mail.smcvt.edu!

First time judge, with experience in LD from my high school years.

Coming back after five years, a lot of the esoteric and hyper-specific jargon is lost on me. I am not a lay judge, but if you're unable to articulate your positions, or give me a roadmap of the round without using terminology that the average individual would be able to discern, I will drop speaks.

I have a degree in Philosophy, Political Science, and Gender Studies, and as a result, am more than comfortable with the framework debate. If there is clash in framework, please do your best to address and weigh that clash. Give me clear, and distinct points where 1.) your framework better links to the value, 2.) your framework outweighs on some fundamental level (metaphysics if necessary). There is no framework that I think is unfair or out of bounds, so long as it's well reasoned and articulate.

Theory/T is not out of the realm of possibilities, but I don't default to theory for the round. I need you to prove that there is sufficient reason for theory to be a consideration i.e. prove to me that theory is necessary due to some unfair practice by your opponent. If you rush into theory because you don't have a strong grasp on the substance debate, I probably won't be favorable to your shells.

Kritiks were always my favorite part of debate, I think Aff K's are interesting and unique, so long as they link to the res in a meaningful way. Non-top K's can be cool, but there needs to be a reason for me to engage with the argument. If something is missing in the resolution, or excluded, give me a reason why that exclusion is necessary to address. K's on neg need to provide solvency, don't give me "status quo solves" because 1.) that's boring and I hate boring, and 2.) it gives the aff no ground to clash with, which makes the round muddier and also less fun.

If you pull up with a progressive case or an interesting argument, I will automatically be more interested in your position. Those are so much cooler, and much better to engage with than lay cases. If you pull up without a framework, I will automatically be less willing to vote for you. You're going to need to link really clearly into the opp framework.

If you want some higher speaks, here are some ways to do it, you'll get more points for each one:

+0.1 for making funny joke
+0.1 for being drippy
+0.5 for unironically defending marxist or anarchist positions
+1.0 for making a yugioh reference (if you say "blue-eyes white dragon", "dark magician", "shadow realm", or "its time to duel" you will lose 1.0 speaks I am not kidding that is not funny make a joke about the meta or something silly but get that normie garbage out of my face this is not a joke)
+1.0 for saying "goated with the sauce" without forcing it.

I'm fine with pretty much anything else, if you have any questions before the round, feel free to email me at jwilson5@mail.smcvt.edu!

add me to the email chain - djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fourth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s.

For LD circuit debate - I have judged a lot of traditional LD, but I’m still getting used to circuit. It’s in your best interest to give me signposts - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. Make sure I know where you are in the flow. I prefer a slower debate style where I can at least distinguish the words you are speaking.

For Parliamentary Debate - I have judged Parli and will choose a winner based on which team best supports their side on the opinion. I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. I am tech over truth. There’s never a bad side of the motion. Argue what you’re comfortable with and make it an interesting round. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. You should tell me which issues are the most important and why you win those issues. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. I prefer no spreading. If you must spread, you should hope I can keep up. Use taglines, signposts, road maps - anything that helps me follow. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them. However, I am very flow judge and I will always be tech over truth.

2. Please be respectful to your opponent during cross. You’re debating, not bullying or belittling. You can be better than that. Your behavior will be reflected in your speaker points.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case) In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always still have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Good luck and have fun! Debate should be educational and fair.

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. If you are going to speak fast, please send me your case.

Please be respectful to your opponents! Have a great debate!

Email: abigpandor1@gmail.com

"Hope is a discipline." -Mariame Kaba

Please put me on the email chain or reach out to me with questions/concerns at 4ristotle.x[@]gmail.com. Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson before/after/during the round. If the round is unsafe, and you would like to stop the round and ask that I speak to Tab, and I do not seem to notice, please please just stop the round and tell me. I will do everything in my capacity to advocate with you.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF. More art in debate, please.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line. Debaters reading arguments they care about is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event. I err towards K teams getting alts in PF and believing that an alt is not a counterplan.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event. For migration -- this topic is deeply important to me for a myriad of personal reasons. I am expecting that you approach this topic with the critical thought, relationality, and self-reflection that all forms of liberatory thinking ask. I am not just in the back of the room to give you a ballot, but to facilitate and endorse your exploration of migration, the border, and humanity towards emergent strategies of resistance. This is to say: I hope you never, never, forget, especially on this topic, that we have a world to win.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity. (I'm serious. If you use your 30 minutes before the round to write a poem/pick out a song to play and talk about the resolution as a metaphor, I will 100% reward your speaks and evaluate it happily, though I still expect you to defend your performative choices.)

Speaks - My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain here most of the time w/ the exception of any egregious incidents. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you.

Speed - A poem that describes my thoughts: go fast! / or go slow! / I will flow. (Spreading is fine! Please just number your responses. I have horrible hearing/horrible tinnitus and I will probably accidentally combine/miss stuff off the flow if it isn't numbered. Numbers help me distinguish between your responses and double-check my flow for anything I've missed.) More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).If you include at least 1 organic scholar as evidence/offense in your debating at any point in the round (and explain to me why this is an organic source/what your source does for affirming or negating), and point it out to me, I will give you a 30. Ask me if you're not sure who/what an organic scholar is!

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions -- please hold me accountable! And also feel free to ask me for lit recs. (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts - For every student I judge: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. You are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

-

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: A description of the scholarship I enjoy evaluating (because I have realized the borders between bodies of literature are always overlapping/shifting/changing/imagined): I like debaters who do not forget the ways racial capitalism grows and changes in response to new landscapes. I love learning about: queer studies, trans studies, coloniality, Asian American studies, performance studies, fugitivity, study/planning, semiocap, capitalism. (Students also like to read Deleuze and Lacan in front of me. That's fine. Just know you're on thin ice -- and I say this semi-affectionately -- when you pull out the Zizek evidence. I won't not vote on it, but I will be happier to vote on something else.)

I am excited to hear about your original contributions to critical scholarship -- your identification of weak points in systems of domination, ways we can apply pressure, and how they shift/change/adapt. Do not just read old taglines and uncontextualized work! These systems evolve, grow, and change in response to us pressing on its weak points. You need to reflect and acknowledge that. I will reward innovative/creative affs and negs.

I am absolutely a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage! I always think more people should read/engage with the K.Unless you have a really good reason, please extend K/case/performance/whatever kritikal argument you want me to vote for. If I don't know what the aff does/you are just reacting to whatever is said in the last speech and not leveraging the case page, I will be very sad and have a very hard time voting for you.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: If you are reading the same old "the 1AC plays with hand grenades" shells, please seriously consider just reading a counterperformance and finding a song to play that you really care about instead. I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I tend to be a little harsher when judging performance debaters because they neglect the performance -- this is your path to the ballot. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices or something. :(

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and kritikal scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Numbering responses.

-Winning the framing page.

-Original, liberatory scholarship.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

-Organic sources. (Music, poetry, dance, etc.)

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Things that can get you higher speaks:

• AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
• +1.0: GETTING ME FOOD (protein bars/shakes and tuna sandwiches is nice, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
• +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
• +0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
• +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
• +0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
• +0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Suits, the Office, etc.)
• +0.3: Being funny
• +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
• +0.5/0.1: I will have my switch with me before the round: if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1 OR you can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
• +0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
• Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Shortcut:

I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: jarvisxie03@gmail.com

T/Theory: 1

Basic Phil: 1

LARP: 2

Basic K: 2

Tricks: 2

Weird Phil/Weird K: 4

Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Sam Xiong

Debated 4 years LD for Canyon Crest '20, not debating at Dartmouth '24

ONLINE: Would highly prefer email chain over NSDA Campus upload if possible

Email chain:

xiongs321@gmail.com

I am not the best at flowing. If you want to win, please please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate, especially for denser arguments and analytics not on the doc. SIGNPOST

In the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness and education are voters

debate is probably a good activity but I can be convinced otherwise

T and Theory are same layer

Metatheory above theory

********

Not really biased against anything except frivolous T/Theory and tricks, I will vote on it but I may require a higher threshold and your speaks may take a hit.

Feel free to run everything, but just please tell me how to evaluate, weigh, and collapse.

K's are great, but don't assume I know all the lit and make sure you're clear and understandable, especially for more complicated/obscure ones.

I lean more than two condo is probably bad.

Once again, please explain stuff in your own words, weigh, slow down and emphasize points etc.

Be respectful, don't be offensive.

note - this is for the odi camp tournament
hi ! my name is leah (you can call me leah or leyu, either is fine - she/her !) and i used to be a debater at garland high school. i semifinaled the TOC, accumulated 6 bids, and won TFA state.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - leahyeshitila03@gmail.com

note for nsd - keep the round education! i will evaluate anything because i know prefs dont operate in the same way as typical tournaments, however obviously consider the implications of your arguments and ensure they arent problematic. im looking forward to helping all of you!

*updated note - dont presume someone cannot read disability pess because they dont "seem disabled" - additionally asking in cx is probably bad

my experiences

i am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. the kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however  positions like deleuze, baudrillard, grove, psychoanalysis, honestly pretty much any k lit base are positions i have learned enough to evaluate these debates well enough, just be sure to explain everything well. ive gone for t/theory alot to so do your thing : )

my favorite kinds of debate (for this specific tournament)

- short cut

1 - K

1 - theory/t

2 - LARP

2 - high theory

3 - phil/friv theory

4 - tricks v tricks (tricks other than that - 2)

LARP v K

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework - look at patrick fox's paradigm for a good explanation of this)

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations. 

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions. additionally, i appreciate the performance of these debates, but theres a fine line between being petty and embodying the literature in a good/fun way and being rude especially to younger debaters - be conscious of that line!

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc - all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

7 - simones takes i find extremely compelling/i find myself agreeing with a lot of it in terms of the nature of being respectful to different race, genders, and socioeconomic locations of debaters. - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=77592

things i like to see/good speaks !

1 - collapsing !!

2 - GOOD 2nrs on framework

3 - making fun at the admin/instructors at ODI

4 - if you happen to be black

5 - make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun !

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive ! try not to be rude, as we have been having trouble with it.

4 - i personally dont appreciate the death k being read in debate

I am a new parent-judge for Chelmsford High School.

When speaking in round:

- Please don't spread! (In other words, please speak slowly and clearly)

- Keep acronyms to a minimum

- Signpost

- Explain your warrants clearly

In final focus, I would appreciate if you would weigh your arguments in comparison to your opponents' to help me better compare your cases side by side.

Other than that please work your best and I look forward to judging your rounds!

Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)

Email: maxwell.zen@gmail.com

I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.

For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.

Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - please don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and please make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.

Salve! I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard College debating in APDA and British Parliamentary.

TL;DR: be nice, present your ideas clearly, and have fun!

LD Paradigm

1. I prefer traditional LD.

2. I might not catch everything if you're spreading.

3. Don't read Ks or theory.

4. I prefer warrants over evidence.

General Paradigm:

1. Be nice. I will not tolerate hate speech or offensive behavior of any kind.

2. I might not catch everything if you're spreading.

3. I might not understand complex theory arguments.

4. In your final speeches, prioritize weighing the most important issues, not rehashing the line-by-line arguments.

Enjoy the debate and good luck!