Below are ten points about my judging:

1)I do have an MS degree from a University in Ohio.  I have a science background, knowledge, and interest in Environmental Science, which is related to the current LD topic. In addition, I have judged eight rounds of LD debate on the current topic. Also, I have judged more recently over a dozen LD rounds on the Nov/Dec topic. I have listed below points given to each side.

2)On the recent topic, debaters have gotten 30/30 from me. Such rounds have ended up with 59 out of 60, the maximum winning points for the both parties put together.

3)Knowledge of the subject will help your presentation.

4)Don’t forget to tell me how you want me to vote. I will look to my own analysis but first to key voting issues.

5)At times you may have a better/more applicable value/criterion than your opponent. But in those times I will ask myself if you defended your case adequately compared to your opponent who did not have as good framework as you.

6)Try to use all the available time and also avoid going over time.

7)Try to answer all questions in cross-examination unless you are certain they are irrelevant. Even then, perhaps give the benefit of the doubt in case your opponent has a point to make.

8)If you manage your time well and have prepared, you won’t drop any contentions.

9)Maintain eye contact even during your constructive, although rebuttals and cross ex will determine the winner.

10) I will select a winner only during the ballot write-up, upon completing the debate and without giving myself an opportunity to form an opinion early on.

I'm a former extemper and judge debate once or twice a year. I don't have a paradigm: the best idea is to speak slowly enough to be understood and to present good reasons why your side should win.

I am mostly uninterested in arguments from authority, unless the authority in question would have been expected to say the opposite (e.g. Donald Trump in favor of lots of immigration or Barack Obama in favor of going to war with Iran).

I don't have time during the round to scrutinize evidence. Quick, big statistics (how many Americans have died from Covid or gunshots in the past year, etc.) are useful; evidence that purports to show correlation or causation (e.g. states that lower the drinking age to 18 suffer from X% more drunk driving deaths per year) are more difficult to evaluate while also trying to judge a round and keep on schedule. Evidence that tries to reduce correlation to an unvarying and inflexible causal arrow (if I vote Con or Pro then tens of millions of Americans will lose their jobs or die of Zika virus) will probably be discarded as unpersuasive.

Talk at a reasonable pace, give reasons supported by some non-controversial and easily-evaluated statistics, avoid inferences to the apocalypse, and focus primarily on persuasion.

I still look for creativity, internal coherence and logical consistency in a well-structured case.  However, as much as I abhor historical counter-factuals and philosophers being quoted (misquoted) out of context, my prima facie role as a judge is not to intervene within the confines of a round. This is your round to win or lose and your obligation (not mine) to identify if and when your opponent is on shaky ground.  I remain open to a well-crafted K, especially one with the additional weight of being relevant (in context) to the topic at hand.  I am not partial to weak theory cases or arguments that would have me find based on a technicality or unfairness due to burden of structure.  Strong theory or spikes that relate in particular to your opponent’s case which constitutes a defacto turn based on a singularly impossible burden or lack of relevance, are fine.

Regarding framework, I feel most comfortable adjudicating these rounds based on a deep background in analytic philosophy.  Once a framework is clearly delineated, this is the lens though which I, as a judge, have an obligation to evaluate arguments and evidence.  But to be clear, I've see many debaters win the framework and lose the round.  A lens is only valuable if you have something worthwhile to focus on. 

At the same time on the VC level, a commitment not to intervene often entails a refusal to weigh against competing values each of which may hold in the same or other possible worlds.  Thus, in these cases, I take an epistemic modesty approach to the framework debate and I’m comfortable voting off of the contention level alone.

The clarity and cohesiveness of your argument and defense should make any decision in your favor clear and of course I accept being obligated to score for those contentions and evidence references that are clearly extended.  I do find signposting and good crystallization helpful.

I would rather understand why and how a card has weight or relevance to your argument during the round but will ask to see a card if I do not understand its relevance or potential weight.  Taking your time to fully mine the value of warrants you would have me consider is appreciated vs an avalanche of dubious merit. Sometimes less is more.

And yes I will advise (in round) if excessive speed or clarity is an issue in my ability to flow. 

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

Han, Albert

I debated for Bronx Science for three years in LD. Since graduating in June 2012, I have had some experience judging debate tournaments - the last was in 2015/2016. Therefore, consider treating me as someone who’s several tiers above a parent judge.

As for specifics: don’t spread as fast as you can. Speed and clarity are two different things, and I highly value the latter. I was never a big debater of kritiks, theory, and all that other fun stuff, so try not to use them. But if you do, make sure to explain them well. I’ll do my best to accommodate.

Framework is important. So is weighing.

If you have any specific questions, please ask me before the round.

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).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

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.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus unwarranted ideas or ill-linked impacts.

Also, I look for a strong theoretical framework that provides warrants for deontological or consequential arguments. The framework debate should focus on who provides the best value and criterion, not who better achieves them (that should be left for the contention level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is completely acceptable if the debate can better achieve it at the contention level.

Strong argumentation begins with the framework but is ultimately won or lost in how strong the contentions and refutations of the opponents' contentions are. Cards/evidence/theories are crucial to developing the contentions and proving the framework true or impactful. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that LD does not require any evidence. If a consequentialist or utilitarian claim is made, then evidence that supports the claim is crucial to winning the point.

I like meta-ethical debates that ask us to question the nature of morality as it pertains to a resolution and kritiks, but I am not a fan of subtextual, existential arguments that ask us to question our existence or reality in general. I believe there must be some basic assumptions about why we are sitting in a round.

Also, I am not a fan of agenda cases with the warrant that this provides the only forum to advocate for a particular cause such as feminism, racism, etc. I find counterplans, disads, overviews, etc. that are topical to be perfectly legitimate. I am not opposed to nontraditional cases as long as they are substantive and offer a clear weighing mechanism.

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of the terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

If the case is truth-testing, you may only need to prove the resolution true or false to win; however, most rounds are won by not only refuting opponents' points, but extending your own points or turning your opponents' points into offense for your side of the debate.

Although I do not mind a brisk pace, I have a low appreciation for policy-style spewing. Moreover, I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it).

Lastly, I do not value a policy theory shell. If your opponent is being abusive, please just explain why the burden, observation, or framework is abusive. There is no need to give interpretation, standards, violations, and voters, etc. I definitely will not entertain theory shells on time skews, so don't waste your time.

I love LD: A fast-paced round with lots of clash, impacting, turns, and clear voters is exhilirating!! Have fun in the round!!

I have been a National Debate Judge for over 6 years, focusing mainly on LD. I look for air-tight crosses and rebuttals, as I put a lot of weight on a strong defense. I am very "face-value" in my decision making process, so I will base my verdict on what was presented, no assumptions will be made to fill in the blanks. Also please avoid spreading as much as possible.

Heya!

So basically my background is that I graduated from Lexington High School in 2013 where I debated LD for all four years. You can run whatever you want, but make sure your arguments have clear warrants and implications, and explain how your arguments interact with the other arguments in the round, because no one likes judge intervention (least of all your judges.) If you have any questions please ask me before the round (:

About Me: Graduated from Scarsdale High School in '09, and coached for the team for a few years after that. I now judge at 5 tournaments a year max.

SPEED: Do not go exceptionally fast in front of me. I don't like excessive speed, and I cannot flow it. I will say clear when i am 100% unable to comprehend you. That means just because I am not saying clear, it does not mean I am getting everything you are saying. If you want a 29 or above, you need to go slow enough to be persuasive. Things like tempo, enunciation, and flavor of speech affect how I will treat an argument, and will affect your speaks.

THEORY: Don't run frivolous theory. I'm not a huge fan of the shell form. I prefer arguments like this, "On his definition of X. Prefer my definition because (1)...(2)..." over arguments lodged in shell form.

RVIs: Go real slow and be persuasive on the RVI debate cuz I cant deal with the pile of one sentence blips that RVI debates usually consist of.

EXTENSIONS: Extensions in front of me MUST INCLUDE a warrant and the EXPLICIT implication of the argument in the round. If it's not there, I probably wont grant you it. I lower my standards slightly for dropped arguments, but not much--certainly the implication must be clear either way.

DISCLOSURE THEORY: I intervene against disclosure theory. You can take a gamble and run it in front of me anyway, just know that I will only vote for it once I, Oliver Roth, personally believe it is a good standard for the activity. If you fail to convince me, you will lose. 

TRICKS: I love them. Smart, substantive tricks are great. Dumb tricks...less great.

MULTIPLE POSITIONS: It is fine to run multiple offs/theory shells (though, remember, I advise against the shell form) in front of me, but know this: If there are more than 5 positions (Cases, Offs, Interps, Counter Interps) in the round, I will be very unlikely to sift through them to resolve the debate. Your job is to make my decision easy. If I have to sift through more than 5 sheets of paper to determine the winner, you have not done your job. I will exclude positions based on my preference if i have to in order to consolidate the round if there are more than 5 positions.

SPEAKS: My speaks are based on fluency and strategy. If your arguments are clear, fully developed, and you have a good in-round strategy, I have no reason to give you low speaks. Adapting to my paradigm as outlined above will help you get good speaks. I will probably give you no less than a 25/26 unless you are for some reason actively offensive, or you literally say nothing in round.

OUTROUND PANELS: I am inevitably the odd-judge-out on sone occasions (where the other judges are more open to speed, theory, etc). I understand that in these cases, it may not be strategic to adapt strictly to my paradigm. That being said...if I am the odd-judge-out on your panel, throw me a bone. If the round is becoming a theory shit-show, give me a way to vote without sifting through the shit. You WILL win my ballot if you heed to this advice. Spend at least 10-20 seconds in each speech pandering to me. If you do, I will ignore whatever atrocities are going on elsewhere on the flow, and will focus on the issues you throw my way. 

Any questions to clarify, expand on, or add to my preferences are welcome to be asked before the round.

I like debates to focus squarely on the resolution. I prefer that debates on the theory and practice of debate take place in people's spare time. I also have little patience in debates for the word normally in spelled "critique" in English. That said, I judge debates based not on my preferences but rather on what debaters say in the round, and if two sides want me to decide a debate based on arguments focused on some issue unrelated to the topic, I will do so. I prefer that debaters speak at the pace of a normal conversation, though I realize for many debaters today that's, unfortunately, become anathema. I will let you know verbally or by putting down my pen and staring at you with a quizzical look if I am unable to follow you. I prefer ordinary language to debate jargon, and you should not assume that my understanding of the debate jargon you're using matches yours. I will rarely ask to see a piece of evidence since I believe it's up to the debaters to argue during the debate over the relative merits of the evidence they present. If I do ask to see evidence, I expect it to be readily available and for the context from which it was drawn easily apparant.

Jake Shaner

Debate Coach, Stuyvesant High School

Columbia University ‘14

Davis High School (Utah) ‘10

Policy Debate

I am a skeptical person. If you want to play to my preferences, then clash with your opponents, make strongly warranted arguments, and tell me why you deserve to win (aka role of the ballot/why you meet it best). My ideal debate is between an aff that is both strong in its foundations and unique in its approach to the topic, and a neg strategy that employs creative reads on arguments applied specifically to the 1AC.

I want to hear you debate how you debate your best - if that's a politics disad, then throw down a good story of Congressional horse-trading; if that's impact turning hegemony, then explain why multipolarity is better for stability (or better yet, why Chinese hegemony is better for world peace. I would love to hear that debate). I'm totally okay with you sitting down before time is up if there is nothing new left to say or you are just done.

I want to hear what you are good at. I like judging debates because I like to be persuaded, not because I like to hack for the politics disad, conditionality, passive nihilism, Consult Japan, or whatever other argument you only find in a policy debate. My interest in an ongoing debate has almost nothing to do with what the titles of my flow pages are, and everything to do with the execution and knowledge of the debaters themselves.

Speaker points -

Although this is just an approximation, I would bet that my 25/75 percentile in speaker points is a 27.3/28.5. For me, points below 27 demonstrates a lack of meaningful participation or logical thought, and points above 29 mark a debater who was effective, persuasive, and strategic. If I can't understand the text of your cards, you will be hard pressed to get higher than a 28.5, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes for you. I strongly believe that I should be able to follow the debate from start to finish without having to call for cards just to piece the debate back together.

Argument preferences -

Defense - I really, really like defensive argumentation - solvency deficits, internal-link takeouts, all of it is quite useful and extremely underutilized. I will vote aff/neg on presumption. I do not find the argument that ".01% risk of nuclear war means we must pass the plan at all costs" to be persuasive at all - not to say I won't vote on it but a smart debater will easily persuade me with a "this is a ridiculous framing of the issues" line of thought.

Impact Turns - these debates often promote the most clash and force debaters to think about the issues that they advocate. While I think defense is key to check argumentative stupidity, impact turns are often produce the most exciting, comparative debates. I want to see these debates, and you'll probably get higher speaker points as a result of the clash that they produce.

Topicality- Absent argumentation presented against this, I probably lean towards competing interpretations, but I don't think that I should define what the impact of the interpretation on debate is - that's the job of the debaters. As such, I have found that I rely heavily on evidence comparison in the definition debate. If you are going for topicality in the 2NR, please note that I think context, quality, and authorship really matter in your definition debates, and I think quantity is never a replacement for the above. Additionally, though I feel like this should be obvious, I don't think a topicality 2NR should be anything but topicality.

Counterplans/theory - A few notes-

1. SLOW DOWN. I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters are still making theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set.

2. Tell me why I should reject the team, or I'll default to rejecting the argument, unless its conditionality. I can be convinced process counterplans are okay to test the affirmative, but tread lightly when it comes to the more ludicrous ones (aka Consult ___).

3. I think I lean aff very slightly on conditionality. I don't think that multiple counterplans are bad, and a counterplan and a critique are probably not too much for a 2AC to handle. However, at a fundamental level, I have an issue with the neg being able to defend multiple contradictory worlds. This doesn't mean I am a sure vote for the aff in a condo debate - like I said above, one CP and one K, or two CPs, is probably not abusive in most situations. I just think its important from an ethos-level for you to know that I am sympathetic to claims about affs needing to defend against 3+ contradictory positions.

4. If you do go for a counter-advocacy in the 2NR, make it explicitly clear that I should consider the status quo as well or else my RFD will be plan vs. counter-advocacy. Consequentially, you must do the work for me to consider the status quo in addition to telling me to consider the status quo to have me vote neg.

Disads - This is mostly about the politics disad - like everyone else, I think that other well-research and well-executed disads are important and interesting arguments.

The politics/election disad could be an educational tool, if used correctly, to learn about Congress, presidential powers, whip-counts, etc. However, the only thing I've learned from judging these debates is that no one knows a thing about what they are talking about, including and especially the authors of the evidence cited in these debates. If you want to win on politics in front of me, I suggest spelling out a causal chain that is at least a little logical. If you want to beat a politics disad in front of me, attack the link; for instance, will lifting the embargo on Cuban oil actually kill the attempt to raise the debt ceiling? I would love to hear a politics disad that makes sense, but I doubt one exists, especially in the present.

Critiques - I am well-versed in nearly all K lit that is used in debate. I expect that I will know what you are talking about in any given debate. However, like I said above, this does not mean that this is what I particularly care to hear, nor does it mean that I will give you extra leeway to throw jargon and shoddy analysis around. Be specific, be thorough, and be persuasive.

Non-traditional arguments - I do have my own opinions as a participant and community member about inequality in debate and structures of power, but as a judge I seek to be a critic of argument first and foremost. I think these arguments are best presented with passion and experience tied into well-researched literature. However, I will evaluate them as I would any other argument in a debate where one team wins and another loses.

Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive this year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you or your partner continue to prep, I will start prep again. Giving the non-speaking partner the speech is either part of prep or can happen after the other team has got the speech and the speech is starting. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer or, preferably, to grab their partner's computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

My experience from 7+ years in policy debate strongly informs my judging philosophy - I think that plans, counter-plans, and critiques are probably all good. I also have a pretty extensive background in philosophy, especially in continental philosophy, from my academic work. I did a little LD in high school, but I am pretty new to judging. I will make myself open to all arguments and styles, and I have no problem voting on any argument. That said, I think that there are a few things that I will take into a debate with me:

1. Role of the judge -  I view myself primarily as a critic of argument, in that I decide a winner and a loser based on the arguments the debaters present to me. I am much more comfortable in a well-impacted, clearly-framed debate where I am given reasons by the debaters to vote for or against the arguments. I'm unlikely to be persuaded by exclusionary framework arguments based on some kind of preservation of a norm, unless a strong defense is made for why that norm is good outside of it being the norm.

2. Speed vs. Clarity - fast debates are good. Clear debates are better. If you had to choose one or the other, SLOW DOWN. Even top-level LD competitors have major clarity issues, and you will undoubtedly be in a better position if I can understand your argument.

3. Theory - I did not judge a single theory debate last year where I was able to flow everything that was said by each team. I am not a typing/writing automaton, no one is. I can't believe that debaters make theory their fastest debates. No judge that I have ever talked to has said to me, "You know what I want to hear more of - those super fast theory debates." I guarantee you will be happier with my decision if you make a coherent theoretical objection than the disconnected, blippy, mangled phrases that I'm trying to scribble before moving onto the next set. I am thoroughly unpersuaded by theory landmines. If that is your strategy for winning, expect to get low speaker points whether you win or lose the debate.

4. Depth over breadth - there isn't all that much speaking time in a single debate, I would prefer to see you exhibit your strongest critical thought rather than your most proliferated arguments. I have a slight distaste for conditionality, in that I feel a lot of sympathy for affirmatives who have to defend against contradictory positions. That said, I don't feel any sympathy for affirmatives who get out-strategized or out-teched. Take that for what you will.

5. Paperless notes - Prep ends when the flash drive exits your computer. I tried giving teams until they had saved the speech to their flash drive last year, but it increased the length of the debates considerably. If you continue to prep, I will start prep again. Should a computer die in the middle of a speech, I'm perfectly willing to stop and give the team a reasonable amount of time to fix the computer. However, should a computer freeze during prep time, I will not stop prep time - I see it as no different than if you can't find that link turn you desperately need as a result of making a mess with your paper.

I would like you to really focus on communicating with me rather than just on saying what you have to say. Use common examples and make sure that I can really understand what the impacts mean to me or could mean to an individual in the world.

I am looking for you to really focus on prioritizing the arguments and impacts that matter most. Many arguments aren't completely won or lost as there may be harms and benefits to both sides. It's your job to tell me why those specific harms or benefits are impactful enough for my vote.

Use overt organization. Signpost. Be cordial.

Can't Judge: Stuyvesant, Lexington

Background: I debated for 4 years at Lexington and competed almost exclusively on the national circuit.

I coached for Stuyvesant from 2014-2017 and also helped out some former students for TOC 2018. I haven't judged since that tournament and have 0 content knowledge about the topic.

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, performance, tricks, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.

Feel free to message me with any questions at pzhou@wesleyan.edu

Some judges that influenced me: Sam Azbel