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 5th 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 an experienced (Lay/Flay) parent judge - I have never coached, or competed, but I have been judging PF, and LD for 3 years.

** NOTE FOR MSU: This will only be my second CX tournament ever - and my first on the IPR topic - Please, assume I know nothing. Start at the ground floor and build up from there **

Debate as a whole:

• I am best identified as a “Policy-Maker” judge. I think that the best arguments are advantages, and disadvantages.

• I love Line-by-Line refutation.

• Weighing is important. Weigh everything please!! I want some comparative analysis. In short - I need to know WHY something matters.

Me:

I work in fundraising, and non-profit - I like debates about new & interesting topics and/or new & interesting takes on those topics

Ethics:

I have a ZERO tolerance policy for debaters who are disrespectful to each other, and the ballot will come accordingly.

Flowing:

I do not “Flow”, I do however take rigorous notes, and record the arguments in the debate - I do use them to make my decision.

Progressive Arguments:

I am just not comfortable in most Theory & Kritik Debates - I do not have the experience needed to fairly adjudicate them. To be fair to these arguments, I don't think you should run them in front of me.

Speed:

I am generally okay with (some) speed - I understand that you speak faster in debate than you do in real life. However, I do not appreciate spreading. I will clear you once, but after that I will put the pen down.

Housekeeping:

• I don't disclose decisions. Don't ask me to disclose the decision. (if you are just asking about advice/tips, that is very welcomed though!)

• If you are running arguments that could be triggering - please run a trigger warning.

• I think debate is good - It will be hard to persuade me otherwise.

• I think topical debate is good - No Kritikal Affirmatives, please!

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

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

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. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

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 - Please 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. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. 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 action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

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. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. 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. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

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: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

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 because it doesn't link to the aff.

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

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 because performance cannot be erased.

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 risk 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 and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

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 don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

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.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

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 have been judging various events for 5 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

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 strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

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 am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber'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 (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

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

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

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

-great for impact turns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

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

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 that supports framework (in LD & PF). Sharing docs is not a substitution for verbally presenting the material. Please avoid confusing a judge who prefers a more traditional presentation style with being lay - I'm fine with debate jargon, etc.

In policy/CX, my favorite issue to vote on is solvency and impacts that outweigh. I will vote on Topicality, but only if the Neg shows that it is such an egregious violation that it prohibits a decent debate. I consider myself a policy judge. Full disclosure: though I understand most kritiks, it is rare that I vote on them. New in the 2NC is fine as long as its on case.

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, CX, and speech events across multiple circuits for several years and judge all events. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round. Though I certainly appreciate the sentiment, I'd prefer that you shake hands with your opponent after the round as a show of good sportsmanship than with me.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

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 respectively.

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 Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions 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 try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try 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 no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

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 but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must 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 fairly 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.

Updated 1/5/25 Pre-Sunflower Swings

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

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

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 700+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. Those (probably too many) debates have ranged everywhere from local circuit tournaments, the TOC, and to the NDT, but I would say most of my time judging is in national circuit LD, with college policy debate coming in right behind that. I think the reason I judge so much is because I think judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Berkeley Carroll JH, Jasper SG, Plano West AR, Plano West NS, Plano West RC, and Riverside Independent JD.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, Cypress Woods MM, East Chapel Hill AX, Greenhill EX, McNeil AS, and Vestavia Hills MH.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, 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."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

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

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

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

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

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

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

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 706 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff exactly 52% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.504, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.523.

I have been a part of 208 panels, where I have sat exactly 12.5% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

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

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + 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 while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

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

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

For aff teams answering the K, going for framework does not automatically make the risk of the link zero, especially when there is no judge instruction on why your interp would exclude their link arguments. That necessitates that you need to answer the link most often time, especially if there's a turns case argument. I have had too many debates where the 2AR was just framework with no link defense, and I end up voting neg quickly because of conceded link turns case arguments that the 2NR say directly affect the plan's implementation.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

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

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

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

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

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

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

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular 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 are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

In my heart of hearts, I probably am very slightly aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is to innovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts 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, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

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

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

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- 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 debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. 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 ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

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

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- 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 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)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. If you think there is a violation you either stake the round or don't make an argument about it.If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

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 I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic modesty > confidence in skep debates, confidence > modesty in phil v phil debates

Trad/Lay Debate

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

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

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

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the 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

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. Include me on the email chain.

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. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.If I shout Clear three times and you don't slow down so that I can understand, I may stop flowing.

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

Framework:

1. The framework debate is key in LD. This is a philosophical style of debate. Do not neglect 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.

Progressive debate:

1. I'm okay with theory as long as you explain it and it's relevant to the round
2. I do love a good K, but it needs to be relevant to the round. I want strong links to the round and clarity about whether the K applies to "debate" overall, the AFF case specifically, etc.
3. I'm not a huge fan of perms and CPs

VOTERS:

i will vote for whatever you prioritize in the round, however, I do like a strong framework debate.

1. Framework
2. Impacts and weighing.
3. Line by Line.

Ideally, the winner of the round would clearly uphold their value system, have strong impacts, and clear crystallization, and the best defense or offense. 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.

Don't spread. If you insist on it - at least make sure I can actually understand you. I consider myself a trad judge. Strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks. Be topical.

In the event that you have me as a judge and you really reallycan't help but read something not trad, please slow down, I do not want to follow a doc (though I am more than capable of doing so).

I don't disclose speaker points but I will disclose the result of the round.

frasatc@gmail.com - I want to be on the email chain! Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

I understand that I may be on panels with two circuit judges and the round will inevitably be a progressive LD round.

here is a list of circuit arguments I have voted off of

DAs (love these, basically circuit trad)

Ks (set col specific)

Determinism (I didn't want to vote on this either)

Rule following paradox (it was dropped, I do not want to vote on tricks :( )

Overall my "circuit" preferences are LARP (policy) and the K (identity K's think: set col)

If you slow down towards the end of your speech with some clear judge instruction (yes, even if you are spreading) I will figure it out--

Don't post round me- I voted the way I did and demanding I change it or concede that I was wrong is not productive for anyone.

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 Update for NSD:

Harrison '22

Columbia '27

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

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

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

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

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

--

Longer Older Version

ac5180@columbia.edu

Quick Prefs:

Identity Ks - 1

Non-T & Performance - 1

Soft Left Ks - 1

Policy/LARP - 3

Pomo Ks - 4

T & Theory - 4

Tricks - strike

General

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

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

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

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

- Argument quality > Argument quantity

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

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

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

Procedurals

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

- Flex prep should majority be for clarification questions

- Signpost

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

- Look up because I’m pretty expressive

My advice to win in front of me

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

- Talk about something that matters

- 3 offs for less for them to be sufficiently developed

Things I'll reward with higher speaks

- Kindness

- Make me laugh

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

- Not spreading if your opponent isn’t

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

- Reading high quality cards

I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.com

Here 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 a Varsity LD debater.

I have judged Novice LD for two years now. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread etc - 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.

Edit after Harvard '23: Apparently I have a higher threshold for extensions than other a lot of other judges (i.e.: need arguments to be explained with at least some clarity). Do with this information what you wish.

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 and 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.).

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

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.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

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/Philosophy Debate/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
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans 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

Update: Poor round vision is making me sad, stop splitting the 2N/2A because its killing me.

Ex-varsity college policy debater for UMW who read primarily Policy and K's. Been judging for 5 years so Im slowly becoming more cranky about bad debates. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm, currently a MA student in the Women Studies program. I competed in LD for four years, mostly read soft-left policy stuff and fem/ borderlands Ks.

Refer to me in round however you'd like, my pronouns are she/her. Some people hate being called judge but unless you feel comfy referring to me as Amanda then do whatever you want idgaf <3

Im fairly flex at this moment in my judging career so realistically I'm fine with most args. Just dont say morally repugnant stuff. Any questions just ask.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Pref guide:

Ks (General) : 1

K Affs and Performance: 1

Policy: 1

Phil: 3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 5

Theory: 2

Tricks/Skep: 4

______________________________________________

LD:

Here's the most important things to know:

1. Learn how to flow. Im tired of debaters answering stuff that wasn't read. Im THIS close to just not looking at the doc at all because y'all are just docbots.

2. Don't be racist/homophobic/sexist/ or just problematic. Any instances of BLATANT verbal discrimination/ harassment of an opponent then Im giving you an L 20 and will hard stop the round reporting you to tab.HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!!

3. Your pre-written analytics SHOULD BE GENDERLESS. Im ripping my hair out at the fact that people still aren't removing he/him/she/her from docs.

4. I'm expressive af. I will be actively making faces, most of them aren't actually directed at you. Also I do have an RBF so don't take it personally.

5. Do what you are best at.

6. Weigh.

7. Give me judge instruction.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Updated Preferences Stylistically:

Policy-I've started really loving good policy 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. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K-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 :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

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.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. 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. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

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've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes I guess. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells!I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

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.

Skep-This is probably morally repugnant. Only chance I vote in this is when it is completely conceded and I can get a nice slow 2NR explaining the syllogism. I DONT enjoy these debates and would much prefer other things. I've voted on skep twice and somehow a entire tourney decided I should be struck in elims <3 tldr: dont read it unless its an easy debate, if you make me think even just a little about it then you'll probably lose.

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

UPDATED FOR RIDGE DEBATES 2024 (POLICY DEBATE SECTION)

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.

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

I err Tech over Truth

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, ndt ceda) 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.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Policy:

- Same as LD, feel free to ask questions not covered in the LD paradigm.

- I think 4-6 is a pretty good number of off. I like having a good amount of case engagement still. Obv, if your a one off team stick to that but I think 4-6 is a good max for me.

- Running multiple CPs is fine
- Full disclosure: I have not judged on the 24-25 policy topic and I am not familiar with it at all so keep that in mind. My first rounds judging on the topic will be ridge debates. Further, in the spirit of full transparency I am not super familiar with IP jargon so keep it to a minimum or at least like send analytics in a doc so I can look up a word I do not know so I fully understand the impact of what your saying.

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 net benefit. Needs to have all components. 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. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

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 good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

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. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. 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. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

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

LOVE THEM

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! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

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 like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• 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. PLEASE SEND ANALYTICS. ESPECIALLY THEORY SHELLS IN THE DOCS. 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 will. 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.

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 and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

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

Hi, I'm Jeremiah!

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

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.2 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

3 years of College Policy at Binghamton University,a lot of stuff.

Important:

I will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe & I hated losing cuz I read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time (morally abhorrent arguments are the obvious exception)

open cross & flex prep are fine

Clash Debates: I am probably 40/60 in clash debates -- I think T is a beautifully elegant technical argument & K teams often get bogged down in the LBL battle instead of winning the top-level stuff. My standards for T teams have also increased, your blocks should be contextual to the debate & the best 2NRs on T are not only technically proficient but also very persuasive.

The aff: win impact turns, top-level framing, or debate is bad.

The neg: win truth testing, limits, or good TVAs

That being said I love T vs policy affs.

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

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

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

I never did trad LD

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

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 much more. Also, Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks but is not an unwinnable position.

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

Good case debate >> lots of off. I think case debate wins rounds.

I'm also a sucker for good impact turns (spark, cap good, dedev etc)

Reasonability makes way more sense in this activity, I love theory though so if you have a good abuse story go for it.

PF

probability weighing: unwarranted weighing will cap your speaks I don't have any idea of what is probable until technical concessions are made.

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

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

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

TERMINAL IMPACTS PLEASE

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 you will love your speaks.

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

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". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

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

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

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). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them 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 rather than 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 analytics.

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 seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

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. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

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

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

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.

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. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

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 competed in high school Lincoln-Douglas, graduating in 2022. I judge at a tournament or so every year, but that’s about the extent of my involvement.

However, I’m willing to judge the debate you want to have. I am more interested in your understanding of strategy of the arguments you choose to read and less interested in its content. However, I would prefer you avoid exceptionally bad theory arguments.

Good judge instruction will be rewarded. The best debaters make my job pretty simple by accurately pointing out the key issues in the round, explaining why those issues are key, and explaining why they are ahead.

I enjoy hearing creative Counter Plan rounds and technical explanations of specific Topicality arguments. I am least interested in judging positions that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Please clash and weigh.

I evaluate the debate after every speech.

Please do not be mean or offensive.

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

Strake Jesuit '22 and I debated at Harvard as a 2A and got a first round to the NDT & made it to octas

Add me to email chain: zionjd@gmail.com

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

Churchill Update

• this is probably the longest i’ve gone without thinking about debate (almost a year) so clarity and warrants are a must

Tab Shortcuts

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. I STRONGLY prefer that nonblack debaters do not read ontological arguments about black life in front of me, call it afropess or not.

IDK WHY PPL KEEP READING AFROPESS CARDS OUT OF CONTEXT IN FRONT OF ME?? If you aren't Black don't and if your opponent does it pleaseeee call them out. To you youngins here is an article written by myself and peers. https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/. If you are unsure if it's "too pessimistic about blackness" then eer on the side of caution. Now that this is as clear as can be in my paradigm I will be a lot more belligerent about it because its happened more than a few times already

Tricks and friv theory are funny and honestly I'd say I am quite familar with them but if you read it against a performance aff, id pol position, or novice I hope you get clowned and i'll likely give grumpy speaks. If you extempt things it is not my fault if I miss it and 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.

Disclosure - I will vote on it but I believe it is infinitely regressive and am compelled by reasonability arguments if the debater at least has first 3 and last 3. I believe that Black debaters do not have to disclose, but you need to make and extend this argument. Norm setting args are probably true for these debates so have a response to the kind of model of debate you defend

T - idk what a bare plural is and nebel is unnecessarily confusing to me. Not to say I won't vote on it but you have to explain it well enough for me to know why I voted for it.

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.

PIC/PIK/Kritikal CPs: My thing - will love innovation, especially if well executed. Pretty open to floating piks as well.

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.

Phil: I know Kant decently especially well against Ks. I know the general premise of most frameworks and philosophies and spent a lot of time thinking about their interaction vs Ks. If you are having a phil v phil debate just explain and give judge instruction.

Policy (larp v larp) - 2nr/2ar I need a lot of judge instruction because I was pretty removed from the high level debates that occured with this style

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
• I don't care about sending all analytics for a speech and honestly unless you have an accessibility concern I think it's a silly model of debate and don't mind people saying no to this

For High Speaks

- be clear

- be strategic

- 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 or inaccessible 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 debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and 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, 'phil,' 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 double majoring in Philosophy and German at Tufts University. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, I will be happy to clarify.

Prefs

Phil - 1.

Ks - 2: most familiar with Cap Ks, but feel free to throw something interesting like a Heidegger or Baudrillard K my way

Theory - 3

LARP/Policy- 4

Tricks - No.

Framework(s) 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 convinces 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 it.

- I'm partial to 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 overly familiar with spreading. If you spread I may 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 is as follows: If you speak well, you're likely to get higher speaks. If you speak poorly you're likely to get lower speaks. The exception to this is being unnecessarily rude, mean, or belligerent to your opponent or me, which will result in the lowest possible speaker points.

Flow

- I will base my decision off of the flow. I do not and will not vote 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 situation in which the conclusion can be false. I.e. Make sure your argument actually follows the structure of, you know, an argument.

- Quality > Quantity. I prefer two good, well warranted and linked contentions as opposed to four sloppy and small contentions.

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

Other Stuff

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

- 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!

I come from the Australian World Schools/Australs Circuit. This means I am used to a vastly slower mode of speaking than the American styles. Please enunciate and be comprehensible. Provided that I can understand you clearly, any speed is fine. Use keen discretion here.

Good arguments are contentious and plausible.

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.

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
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.

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:

Congress:

I am fairly lax when it comes to congress, and only have a few prefs regarding the flow of discourse in the chamber.

PO: One of the best ways to win easy speaks from me is being organized and up to speed with the chamber. When the PO is on top of their game, the entire session runs smoothly.

Questioning: I despise prefacing and think it is a waste of your questioning time. Make sure to use your allocated time efficiently in order to support your argument. I'd rather you spend questioning in an offensive manner rather than defensive one.

Speeches: I love engaging and extemporaneous speeches. Although not a prerequisite for the sport, I find myself impressed when student's draft a speech on the spot, and love when there is an extra sense of charm and flair.

Overall, acting as a member of congress has one core tenet that is non-negotiable: respect. That is the bare minimum that I require you show your fellow competitors, and will not tolerate anything less.

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.

Lincoln Douglas:

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.

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

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

—————

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

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

LD/POLICY:

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

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

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

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 an academic speaking activity.

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

Email: sebastianfrazier26@gmail.com

*****Scroll down for PF @ Bronx****

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.

PF Paradigm:

Basically same as LD. Tech>>>Truth. Theory, Ks and whatever other 'tech' arguments you want to read are fine.

Arguments should have Premises, Justifications, and Implications (or claim, warrant, impact)

Speed is fine but I haven't been involved in debate since spring so if you aren't super clear slow down.

Please weigh weigh weigh, otherwise I will be sad (this is equally true in theory debates as it is in contention-level debates)

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

Director of the DebateDrills Club Team - here are various policies, incident reporting forms, and roster/ conflict info.

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 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 - judge instruction

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.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Email: andrewgong03@gmail.com

Please also add to the chain: debatedrillsdocs@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

ASK ME ABOUT SPEAKS BOOSTS BEFORE ROUND

i'm a sophomore at binghamton and study math/philosophy. i debated in ld in high school and policy my freshman year of college, ndt qualled and ceda doubles.

i mostly read "pomo" and theory. but i have read almost every style of argument at some point, so read what you want and debate well.

my ability to understand fast spreading has never been great, and has only gotten much worse the past year as i'm not involved in debate outside of a bit of coaching, so please slow down. i am also unfamiliar with the topic and meta, but that shouldn't affect the way you debate, just avoid using any acronyms or explain what they are (especially if i am judging you rounds 1-2).

general thoughts:

[1] i do not have the power to decide what arguments are valuable and which kind aren't. if you can't answer a bad argument, my ballot will likely be an indication that you cannot answer bad arguments.

[2] tech>truth but arguments need warrants!!! not voting on under-explained arguments, even if it's an econ da i've heard a million times that wasn't explained in the 2nr.

[3] i am tab on content/trigger warning theory BUT reserve the right to end a round or hack against you if you try gratuitously discuss a sensitive topic, regardless of whether you read a warning or not

[4]do not delay rounds unless necessary. don't come to the room late (unless there's a legitimate reason, preround coaching/prepping is not), aff should be SENT at/before start time, don't steal prep time, don't go overtime in speeches, etc. i've never lowered speaks but will

[5] ev ethics stuff you will auto-lose for includes clipping and whatever gets you in trouble for academic dishonesty at a school (ie fabricating sources). if your opponent is doing these things, you should stake the round on them, but other forms of ev ethics (ie not providing a link) should be decided in-round.

[6] i appreciate being spoon-fed RFDs. realistically, you will not be getting good speaks if this does not happen

[7] i am not here to police the way you act or carry yourself, but i would much rather judge rounds where debaters treat each other with kindness and respect

[8] i agree with everything in this paradigm - i worked with mark when i was fresh out of high school, so a lot of the ways i approach debate as a judge/coach were influenced by him. i was coached by sesh joe and breigh plat in high school (if you are old enough to know who they are), so they were also influential to how i approach this activity in general

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 CX-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 am a lay judge, through and through. Keep that in mind. I don't mind a simple argument if you're capable of keeping it well-reasoned, comprehensible, and understandable to someone who doesn't know much on the procedural expectations of the style.
• 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 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 a 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 CX circuit at large!)

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

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

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.

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.

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

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)

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected. I am not tabula rasa. If I'm not convinced, I'm not voting for it.

I do NOT want to be on the email chain. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay-writing contest. If I don't hear it, the argument is not being flowed. Spreading is a no. I will only call for evidence if indicts are made.

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.

Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated. Answer CX questions in good faith please. Be respectful of your opponent.

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 and develop your alt. 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 only use a reasonability standard.

LARP is not ok. You are not policy makers. Please 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. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

IF YOU POWER TAG YOUR CARDS I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.

I will give +0.1 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 awarded Distinguished 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 any 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 a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

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!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

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. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

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

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

BIG PICTURE:

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

SHORTCUT:

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

Trad debate - 1

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

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

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

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Background:

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. In the year following my graduation, I worked as 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 will evaluate all arguments to the best of my ability, I'm the most comfortable judging substance.

Miscellaneous:

• Spreading is fine but slow down for author names and argument taglines.

• If you're reading a shell, warrant your voters. For instance, simply saying "fairness is a voter because debate is a game and games have rules" is insufficient (the claims within that argument must be proven, not merely asserted). 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 is instead "vote for me if I win on theory because theory has irreversibly 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 cases exists due to accessibility concerns, not for participants to introduce visual aids into what is otherwise an oral activity. As such, please refrain from saying anything along the lines of "see my attached 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.

For the Novice debaters especially : 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 Preferences:

• 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 do, however, 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 or theory

=============================================================================

Speech Preferences: 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. This is my second year judging Lincoln Douglas. Last year, I was able to judge for several local tournaments and expanded my judging to include the Harvard tournament. On a personal note, I'm a mom of two teenage daughters who play a variety of sports locally and for club teams and I am a Marketing professional.

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.

hi i'm neel (they/them). i did a bit of circuit pf and circuit ld at plano east in texas. i'm now a third year at michigan (go blue) but i'm not affiliated with the debate program. i made a couple of useful resources (pf forward and the debate group) back in my debate heyday. i'd say i'm relatively removed from debate now.

would appreciate content warnings about sexual violence or self harm - also don't read death good in front of me.

i tend to agree pretty heavily with jay namdhari and rahul penumetcha (ld/cx) and samuel loh (pf) - feel free to check their paradigms out for more in-depth stuff.

my favorite judges when i was competing were rose larson, blake andrews, cale mccrary, sam loh, and rachel mauchline.

i'm pretty removed from debate. as such, i don't have much topic knowledge and am pretty rusty as far as flowing goes. it's in your best interest to slow down, pop tags, be super clear, and give me pen time.

i'll pick up what you put down - if you extend an argument with a claim, a warrant, and an impact until the end of the round, i will consider it when making my decision. this rule is blind to the substance of this argument - i will be sad about a ballot on eval the debate after the 1ac, but i will do my best to evaluate the argument nonetheless.

that being said, as a debater and judge, most of my experience lies within policy positions and the kritik. i occasionally read legit and more frivolous shells, went for tricks like 2 times, and never really debated dense phil. if you feel confident in your ability to explain your theory shell, spikebomb, or weird phil nc really well, go for it. my lack of experience doesn't mean that i have a predisposition against those arguments.

i'll admit that i believe that disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad - it's an uphill battle to win opposing arguments in front of me.

debate smart - if you are efficient, make the correct strategic choices, and write my ballot for me in the backhalf, i'll do my best to bless you with speaks.

if you have specific questions, feel free to ask before round.

i think joining debate was the single best decision i made in high school (other than deciding not to take the ap art history exam) - i'm more than happy to be a resource or chat about what debate can do for you beyond high school, well into college and the job search.

best of luck!

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 five 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 am open to speed, but I will say clear if I can't understand you. However, as a coach and in general I am anti-spreading. 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.

Paradigm for LD at MSHSL Sections, State and Southern MN Qualifiers

Judging debates is inherently an interpretive activity, and your role as a debater is to persuade me that you won the debate. When judging, I try to start with the metrics that are set up by the debaters in their speeches while making my decision. That means that I tend to reward debaters who do strong framework debating, impact calculus and judge instruction. Debaters who craft their strategy by thinking about their win conditions and their opponents' win conditions will be successful in front of me.

The value and value criterion is generally where I start my evaluation of debates. I will determine which criterion is the winning lens for me to view the round, and then determine which side wins more offense under that criterion.

Speed of delivery: I have no problem with any speed of delivery, as long as you are clear. However, if your opponent requests that you speak at a conversational speed, I expect that you honor that request.

A note on "national circuit" arguments:

The role of the affirmative is to prove the resolution true and the role of the negative is to prove the affirmative false. I don't expect debaters at sections and state to be able to engage with "national circuit" style arguments like I would if this were a TOC-bid distributing tournament, given that it is not the norm of our circuit.

I'm open to any substantive argument that debaters chose to make. This means that arguments that function like counterplans and kritiks can be fair game if the negative debater explains why they fulfill the resolutional burden.

A note on evidence:

Per MSHSL rules, I cannot request to look at evidence unilaterally. Thus, if there is a dispute in the round over what a piece of evidence says, you should explicitly instruct me to read evidence so that I can call for it after the round.

Debaters have the right to examine evidence introduced by the other side. If you are debating off paper, you need to provide a copy of your evidence to your opponent if requested. If you are debating off a laptop, you should either be prepared to share a speech document with your opponent or give them your computer to examine evidence during prep.

Other argumentative notes:

The plain meaning of the resolution implies that the affirmative can fulfill its burden either by proving that becoming party to UNCLOS is desirable, or that becoming party to the Rome Statute is desirable. I am exceedingly unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that the affirmative must prove both.

Non-consequentialist frameworks are currently underutilized. More debaters should be taking advantage of this.

"No burden to prove solvency" is a silly argument if you are using a consequentialist criterion. If you are arguing that morality is determined by the consequences of actions, you have the burden of proving that you mitigate the problems that you are talking about.

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.

LD/CX:

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.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

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 a third-year speech and debate coach. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013.

I prefer a conversational speaking speed. Clarity is more important than speed. I’m OK with speaking fast, but if you’re spreading too fast for me to understand, then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. At your request, I can tap on the desk or otherwise signal you if you're speaking too fast for me to understand.

Don't run tricks. Don't run frivolous arguments full of arcane academic jargon meant to sound intelligent without any context or substance. You are not a sorcerer reading a spellbook.

Generally not a fan of theory shells unless there is a very real apparent violation/abuse in round.

LD - I prefer traditional debate in LD but I have been persuaded to vote for Ks, plans, counterplans etc in the past.

PF - I don't like progressive cases in PF. I believe a key part that distinguishes Public Forum as a debate event is it is meant the be interpreted by the "public", meaning the average person off the street could observe the round and understand what is going on.

General notes:

-extend your frameworks

-quality>quantity. Fewer better quality arguments with better weighing/analysis is better than winning lots of weak arguments

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning

-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.

-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.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email - arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com (but I prefer speechdrop)

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 will not (generally) 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 will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

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 or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

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. 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.

Please no spreading, or at least slow down when I ask for a clear. It won't affect speaker points or decision but if I look like I'd rather do poetry interp instead of flowing it's because it I do :)

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!

**Word of caution: talking about judges after the debate is unprofessional and will get back to us.

**Avoid spreading. Please do not ask me about type of debate I prefer such as progressive. I judge based on evidence. Winning framework is not enough!! I'd prefer that both sides send cases & cards. Add me to the email chain: phlw7@hotmail.com unless you're using Tab's file share. I need to see that your evidence is cut correctly.

**Send cases before the round time starts. Don't be late. Please get there early.

**Please do not water down content because I'm a parent judge. I will tank your speaks (eg: one contention). Just explain it.

**Absolutely no reference to current political figures/parties. I will tank your speaks.

**Don't use morality as a value. This is LD - that's assumed.

**When the round is over, do not stay in the room to prep.

This is my third year judging.

Repetition ≠ extension. Using your entire prep time is optional!! Arguments made past time will be struck. Please monitor your own time and each other's time(prep as well). I will only jump in if there is a discrepancy or if time is significantly exceeded.

Please silence phones. Thanks!

If you do not agree with any/all of my paradigm, kindly strike me :D!! Thanks so much!!

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 junior 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. I am theoretically 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 (but ideally more trad stuff). 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 - 4-5

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 third year judging LD as a parent judge. Please add me to the email chain: omicsoft@gmail.com

Preference: Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments > Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy > Theory > Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer traditional rounds with straightforward 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 -

• Limit speed to <250 wpm for ALL your speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches.
• DAs/CPs are perfect
• 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!

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

Updated December 2024

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 extensively involved in the NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 and written several topic papers (including the Latin America topic from 2013-2014), so I know the work that goes into crafting resolutions. If you advocate for/against the resolution somehow, I'll give you pretty wide latitude. Ignoring the resolution means the bar is pretty low for me to ignore you (though I have seen teams fail to navigate themselves over that bar).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes, I want to be in on any file sharing but I'm not going to refer to the document during a speech unless I feel like something happened that made me lose concentration or I'm snagging the odd cite. For speed, I don't flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I'll yell "clear" twice without repercussions; on the third "clear" in your speech, the pen goes down and I'm probably opening up eBay to shop for coins (and you're losing speaks) until you or your partner picks up on the cue. Getting things on my flow is your job, not mine. I will 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, yeah, I understand things like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality pretty well, your K based on some random European dude who says adopting his method is the only way for life to have value is going to take some explaining.It is your job to put me in a position to explain to the other team why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. Framework or "role of the ballot" arguments that are not reasonably accessible to both teams are likely to get ignored. Example -- "use the ballot to affirm my identity" when the other team doesn't have that identity is probably getting tossed, but "use the ballot to combat structural violence being committed against a marginalized community" that you happen to be a part of and we'll be good to go.

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 will worka little harder than youto make sense of the round. If neither side does work, I'm going to find the first thing I can embrace and sign the ballot.Asking me to read evidence, particularlyyour evidence, is 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

0. Do not spread in Public Forum -- if you want to spread, there's two other perfectly good debate events for you.

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

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

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 care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

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 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

I am a parent judge.

I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but make sure I can flow.

Feel free to include me on the email chain: lmeyermd@gmail.com

Hi, I am Elizabeth Miani. I am a lay parent judge.

I want to be on the email chain: elymiani@gmail.com
I expect debaters to send the 1AC before the round and then the 1NC after the first cross-examination. If you read new cards/evidence in rebuttal speeches, send it on the email chain before your speech.

I am fine evaluating whatever you want to present; just do not spread.

You are best off running a traditional case in front of me as that is what I have experience judging.

BE LOUD AND CLEAR AND SIGNPOST.

Remember, simplicity and clarity will go a long way in winning the round with me as your judge. Good luck!

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

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

My email is Lizzie.murno@gmail.com

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

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

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

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 2/3

Phil - 4/5

LARP - 5/6

Tricks - Strike

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, fem Ks, and cap Ks.

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

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

Larp

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

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

T/Theory

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

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

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

Phil

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

For Novice LD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 junior at Harvard College debating in APDA with experience judging PF, World Schools, and APDA.

Be polite and respectful during rounds.

If possible arrive early

I OPT OUT OF ALL DISCUSSIONS OF ISRAEL/HAMAS

You will be auto-dropped if you read arguments relating to the current conflict.

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.

You do not need to prove complete solvency for me to buy an impact or argument - ie any reduction in climate change is better than no reduction, regardless of if you solve climate change

For PF:

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 generally don't buy high-impact low probability arguments unless they are well warranted—ie if you say x will lead to nuclear war, there must be a very good link-chain.

I generally don't flow cross-ex, if a contradiction is important please pull it through to FF!

For APDA:

I don't have any theory pre-beliefs.

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.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[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-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

nd24:25/75 on whether i open speech doc during debate - will be flowing on paper and have something going on in my left ear so slowing down some may be helpful.

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 in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs 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. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate.

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.

8 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.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, 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 has 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.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

• any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

• flow clarification questions

• spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
• reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
• mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

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 (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is 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. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Hi! I’m a parent judge in my second year for JV/Varsity LD and PF.

I don’t particularly enjoy spreading, but if you must, share your docs. I can also flow some prog arguments, but please explain your links thoroughly.

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.  

Hi, my name’s Sarah (she/her) and I’m a second-year at Western University in Canada. I did debate all four years of high school, mainly LD (NC state champ) but with some experience in PF (like three tournaments) and World Schools (nsda quarters x2) 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 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.

• 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!

belvidere required paradigm info:

Name: Kalina Pierga

School Affiliation: Barrington High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: 4 years debating, 5 years judging/coaching

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. PF

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.) Does not factor into decision unless completely incomprehensible + no speech doc.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Depends on whether VC becomes a voting issue in the debate.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)-No expectations, do your thing. I think overviews and framing on top is strategic, though.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision? Yes unless you love judge intervention

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- Critical

Flowing/note-taking- No opinions or beliefs on this

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? argument > style

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?Depends on the round. But yes, a debater can still win using their opponent's FW.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? Necessary, unless uplayering to T.

GBX 2023 update:

as per below, for accessibility purposes, it's in your best interest to send your doc esp if you're spreading analytics.

harvard disclosure theory 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 questions regarding any of the above, let me know before round. Happy to answer 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.

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research rather than theory or a recycled backfile, but I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit)

Experience: I've coached since 2016. Currently the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes (TX), previously coached at Lakeville North/South (MN). I did NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college (like extemp policy) and PF/Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

--

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

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

Note for Harvard: I do not think about debate more than once a year and know very little about the topic.

I have also discovered that my threshold for warranting is way too low, so I will be increasing my threshold for warranting. If you plan to read blips and tricks in front of me, they MUST be warranted in the speech they were read, and I MUST understand the warrant. Saying the words "I am the GCB" is not a warrant, and I will not vote on it even if it goes dropped. Additionally, the sillier the argument (e.g. "Evaluate after the 1AC"), the lower the threshold for responding.

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 – 3

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 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 (this is just a default though and can be changed with arguments).

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!

· 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.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

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.

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

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

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

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) and want to hear a coherent and compelling case. Here are some things that I'm looking for:

• Give me sound and cogent arguments
• Refute your opponent’s arguments and objections
• Defend your framework
• Make your case clear and easy to follow
• Don't give me flimsy premises or invalid arguments. Don't build your case on unjustified assumptions, simply assume the correct framework, or commit informal fallacies
• DON'T SPREAD! Instead, I’d rather hear fewer arguments developed at a deeper level
• DON'T RUN Ks!

If you enjoy progressive debating, please strike me. Lastly, I don't disclose my decision in person so don't ask.

May the odds be ever in your favor!

This is my third 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. I 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.

- 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.

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.

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. Otherwise should be fine.

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.

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 warren. The more specific the links the better.

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. 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 for Collegiate Academy in New York. I mostly ran performance/queer rage Ks in high school, if that matters to anybody reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are still reading, pet this cat!

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

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.

I hate intervening. Please weigh so that I do not have to intervene. Weighing must be done on the impacts and ALSO internally within arguments to prove which team accesses impacts more

I appreciate creativity and am happy to hear clever and novel arguments. However, you must actually make logically robust arguments; I do not reward cleverness for cleverness' sake. In almost all cases, raw evidence claims are less persuasive to me than well-reasoned arguments (which can of course be backed by evidence). I find it extremely off-putting when debaters are unnecessarily aggressive to others. Make an effort to be respectful; chances are it will also make you a better debater. I’m fine with speed

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.

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

New Updates:

• Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!

• Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.

• I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.

• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

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

Email: zachary@siegel.com

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

Some musings:

• Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.

• I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.

• I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.

• I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.

• I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.

• Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

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: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't os it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

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.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm-On a tech panel, you can do whatever you want. On a lay panel, treat me like a lay judge. I feel that PF should be a debate any judge can walk into and understand, but if you're given a fully tech panel feel free to do what you want. However, take a moment to think if you're reading progressive in front of an LD/policy judge if your argument is structured properly, you know what you're doing, and you'll make the round interesting by reading it. If not, reconsider.

- 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 civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking 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 think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

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.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please 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.

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 and that seems antithetical to education to 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.

Email:annikasunkara@gmail.com. I prefer evidence-sharing via email chains

PF: You can speak fast, but please not so fast that you become sloppy/incoherent. If I find that you are speaking too quickly for me to understand you, I will call "clear," which is an indication that you should slow your tempo a bit.

Generally, final focus, summary, grand cross, and cross contribute the most to my decision in that order. Failing to respond to an opponent's argument will require me to flow that over to your opponent. Weighing contributes significantly to my decision. Prove to me that you win through your impacts. DO NOT misconstrue evidence, I call for cards when I need to, and if I see this, you will lose credibility.

If you are blatantly disrespectful to your opponent including repeatedly 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 respectful during all parts of the debate.

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.

I did policy debate in highschool, Parli and IPDA in college and I teach MS LD and PF. However, with that said, I mainly coach speech so I'm definitely not as proficient in flow as I was years ago. I am familiar with circuit rules. In terms of debate, I like sign posting, clear turns and impact calc. Basically, don't make me do your work for you. In terms of solvency presses, mmm its LD so not really. Kritiks, I'm really not a fan of them (unless its legitimate) but if dropped or not addressed I'll take it into voters. Finally watch cp language I'm using CHSA rules this tournament so no go. Also not a fan of evidence battles but will hear out framework debates. Basically, run it more trad and all will be well.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, 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.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

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.

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 below. 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 are 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 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.

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.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, 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.

At one time, I judged a fair amount of LD on the circuit. It's really been about four years since I've been active, though. I am not up on anything new or even nuanced. I'll do my best to be as tab as possible.

Please add me to email chains: jacob316@gmail.com

Vanguard Debate, The Kinkaid School

NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

The aff should read a plan. The neg should disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or a competitive alternative are preferable or the plan is not topical.

I am not here for spurious critiques of assumptions, tricks, or RVIs. I am willing to vote for non-consequentialist normative frameworks, but I find these debates uninteresting and they are not my forte.

The negative gets unrestricted access to unlimited conditional advocacies.

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional 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, 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 7ish.

__________________________________________

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 sophomore at Harvard. I compete primarily in APDA at college, and I also occasionally do BP.

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! Lots of them! 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 flow fairly extensively (paper or Google doc), and it is easier to judge your arguments if I know what you are responding to

4. Speak clearly, and don’t speak too fast. If you speak too fast, I will cry. Literally. Under 240 wpm please

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 a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

My name is Zi Wang (Zee).

I'm a parent judge. I'd prefer traditional debates over progressive and normally don't vote on tricks, Ks, theory, etc. Please don't go too fast and make your arguments clear. Make sure that you weigh and give clear voters.

Email: ziwangdebate@gmail.com

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!

It has been over 30 years since I did LD debate. More importantly, my career has been professional advocacy in various contexts.

If a resolution should be affirmed or negated, an effective debater should be able to persuasively explain why to a jury, a legislative body, a board of directors, or to colleagues at a professional conference. If the way that you debate would seem out of place in those contexts, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. If your argument depends on someone being familiar with flows, spreading, dropping contentions, frameworks, cards, counterplans, voters or other weird jargon that is not used in normal or professional conversations, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. You can use those concepts but do so in a way that would make sense in a normal conversation. Lastly, the pace at which you speak and the style in which you speak should also be a pace and style that would make sense in normal conversational contexts.

Here's the bottom line: Make strong arguments, offer relevant rebuttals and do so in a manner that is persuasive and respectful to your opponent. This is "values" debate so let's discuss values - what they are, why they're important, and why your position enhances them. Don't "lose the forest for the trees" -- i.e., get so caught up in various details and technicalities that you neglect the essence of whether a resolution should be affirmed or negated. Do not expect me to keep a "scorecard" or "check boxes." Convince me that youe position is superior to the position of your opponent.

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 sixth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater.

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - We don’t see progressive LD debate in Pittsburgh, so it’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. 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. 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.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

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 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.

Debate should be educational and fair. ABOVE ALL BE NICE! Good luck and have fun!

I am the coach of the Mountain Lakes High School debate team. I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate.

Please be respectful to your opponents. Have a great debate!

Email: abigpandor1@gmail.com

I debated Policy, LD, and PF for 3 years and coached LD and PF for 3 years. Do your best and I will follow along - please let me know if you have questions.

Things that can get you higher speaks:

• AUTO 30: Bringing me a celsius, low-calorie energy drink, diet coke, protein bar/shake, food (something not too unhealthy but lowkey boba)
• +0.5:Tell me who your favorite Strake alumni debater is and text them thanking them for their lasting impact on the activity
• +0.5: Show me screenshot evidence that you followed LaMelo Ball or Niki Zefanya on Instagram and reshared his or her most recent post on your story
• +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
• +0.3: Guess my favorite twice member
• +0.3:Innovative funny arguments
• +0.2: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
• +0.2: Making references to goated shows in your speeches
• +0.2: Being funny
• +0.2: Drip
• +1.0/-1.0:If you and your opponent both agree, you can have a push-up competition and the winner gets +1 and loser gets -1

Notes:

• I haven't thought about debate in like a year
• I don't enjoy tricks rounds that much and lowkey my mood at the time affects speaks

I debated for 3 years at Strake and got 12 bids. Add me to the email chain:jarvisxie03@gmail.com

Shortcut:

T/Theory/Reps: 1

Normal Phil: 1

Normal K: 2

Tricks: 2

LARP: 3

Weird Phil: 4

Weird K: 4

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Joseph Georges (took the majority of his paradigm), Neville Tom, Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

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.

hi! my name is leah and i used to be a debater at garland high school. i semifinaled the TOC, accumulated 6 bids, and won TFA state. im a captain for harvard's policy team (contact me if ur interested on applying/joining the team!). first-round and octofinalist at the NDT as a freshman, took a break, and now im debating again (go harvard GY!)

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - leahyeshitila03@gmail.com

*updated notei was asked in an email if im cool with nonblack people reading pess -- the answer is always no and i will have a very low threshold for the independent voter. read at your own risk!

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 : )

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory. genuinely, the more frivolous, the lower your speaks will be and the lower my threshold gets to responding to it.

non t affs (esp from black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! dont forget about your aff and/or performance!!! when going for these affs in front of me, a good collapse in response to framework/the 2nrs best case argument in the 2ar will be rewarded with high speaks!

please dont make me evaluate tricks or the tricky phil vs phil debates LDers do

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!

happy debating!

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 - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and 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). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. 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!