Hello, I am a parent judge from California.

I typically judge public forum, but can judge LD.

Mainly try to talk slower so I can keep up, be respectful and nice and try your best!

Truth > Tech, no theory debate.

Thank you, keep it up everyone!

Yo what's up, I'm Adam. I'm a flay judge who would love to see any jokes or a little bit of fun during the debate. Be respectful as always tho

add me to your email chains ananyabadari@gmail.com

i've been debating public forum all four years of high school. tech > truth unless you say something actually out of pocket. be civil. there's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. we are not policy so do not spread. given that, some speed is okay. you must frontline in second rebuttal. no new information from second summary onwards. i'll try my best to give line by line rfd's but that can only happen if you signpost, give me the order, extend, etc. please weigh or i'll be sad.

please give trigger warnings (anonymous google forms are best) for sensitive topics and overall, be respectful. that (and round strategy + flow of speeches) is what i base speaker points off of.

read anthara thirupathi's paradigm for more information. we basically look for the same things.

Hi, I'm Audrey and I debate for Fullerton Union High School. If you need credentials, I was the 2022 California State Champion for Lincoln Douglas Debate and the 2023 National Champion in World Schools Debate. If you have any questions about my paradigm or want to ask me something after your round (and we aren't short on time), please feel free to do so. I'm happy to answer questions and provide more detailed feedback; I learned the most when I asked my judges how to improve and what they wanted to see from me in the round.

GENERAL

1. Speed:

I believe spreading isn’t portable to the real world and is inherently problematic because it locks out so many debaters in terms of accessibility. There are so many debaters who cannot physically spread or keep up with the speed and to simply expect people to learn when they are physically hindered is something I dislike. Furthermore, small school debaters are already overwhelmed to begin with because of so many structural disadvantages, and spreading is often used to throw in as many offs as possible, so I feel that the disparities continue to stack up.

2. Disclosure

If you are online, I expect you to send your speech documents to both me and your opponent. Wifi is finicky and it's so much easier/time-efficient to call for evidence. My email is audreyhbae@gmail.com so please add me to the email chain. Google Docs and Speechdrop are fine too.

3. Evidence Ethics

Have the cut card available and a working link in the card. Please don't say to "ctrl f" in the link, have the actual evidence ready to present. If you can't find the evidence in thirty seconds and it's not cut into a proper card I'm not considering that piece of evidence. Paraphrasing is fine, but you better have that evidence ready to go when your opponent asks for it.

LD

I know progressive arguments as a traditional debater. I am open to a lot of things but not tricks. I am a big fan of securitization and fem Ks.

Please do not have your value as "morality". It's a terrible value because it's so vague and morality looks different for everyone; are we using your morality or Hitler's? Anything but morality as your value.

PF

I did PF in my freshman year and a small portion of my sophomore year, so I'm familiar with the debate style. Just do these absolute basics and you will be fine.

1. Signpost

2. Extend arguments/warrants/warrants

3. Terminalize your impacts

4. Weigh

A high school debater/speaker/judge. I have mostly competed in Parli, but other debates that I have done/am familiar with include, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I have also competed in speech events like Impromptu and Dramatic Interpretation. Overall, I am qualified and will be comfortable with most formats/styles/arguments.

Debate: Some things that I look at/weigh on: I view logic as very key during a debate round. However, it is always better if your logic is backed up with evidence or data. Being a speaker and debater does make me more inclined towards paying attention to the way that you speak during a round, however, my decision in a debate round will be based on the debate itself and not who spoke better. I appreciate offtime roadmaps and would really like it if you signpost during your round. Please be considerate and respectful of your opponents and try not to go too much over time. When deciding the win, I will look at your impact calculus and how well you have tied in all of your arguments and refutations to make your impact stronger than the other side. I like complexity in a debate, but please make sure that you organize your arguments. Organization is essential in all aspects of debate whether it is framework, argumentation, extensions, rebuttals, rejoinders, or impacts. However organization is more of a speaking skill, so it will count towards your speaker points, but for win or loss, I will be taking a look at the content of the debate itself. During POIs, crossfire or cross ex, please be respectful of your opponent when taking their time.

Speech: This is a very fluid set of events, so there isn't really much for me to give you a framework of my preferences. But here is a general list of things by category.

Platforms: Just be articulate and clear. What you say and the way you say it both matter. Smile and be confident!

Interps: This is where your facial expressions and overall manner are of utmost importance.

1 - larp, t

1.5 - k

2 - theory

3/4 - phil (not analytical)

5/strike - tricks, analytical phil

policy

• strength of internal link should be the go-to when weighing the DA vs the aff. timeframe is the tie-breaker.

• functional + textual competition is where i lean, but always down for a good competition debate.

• judge kick is not an option unless the 2NR explicitly makes it one.

• other issues perm is broken against process CPs w/ non-germane net benefits. usually requires competition to resolve.

topicality

• will almost never vote on t-nebel, subsets, substantial, etc. minute losses in precision probably do not outweigh debateability, although you can make args otherwise.

• a good t debate can be fun, but usually isn’t. do ev comparison.

k (neg)

• most Ks should lose to framework + perm double bind. that requires you to establish some other mechanism for competition.

• links don’t have to be specific from the 1NC, but should be contextualized in the 2NR. otherwise, the perm becomes quite convincing.

• perm other instances is underutilized and i think it destroys most Ks.

• “extinction is white futurity” or some variation of that argument requires you to actually win some case defense. you cannot just broadly assert this without disproving the 1AC’s scenario.

k (aff)

• most affs in LD should lose to t-framework. equally debated, i think im 80-20 for framework.

• the aff needs to either defend a counterinterp that resolves a large amount of the neg’s offense OR go all in on destroying debate with a robust theory of power.

• is fairness an impact? sure, but it only becomes persuasive when the impact turn is mitigated. otherwise, risk of antiblackness, subject formation, [insert k buzzword] should probably outweigh fairness.

• TVA + SSD genuinely takes out most k affs and is quite persuasive to me.

theory

• condo is probably good. condo cannot be a blip in the 1ar and be a winning argument. do not drop condo.

• if a CP comptes, it is probably legitimate. con con or other terrible CPs are probably exceptions.

phil

• don’t have much experience here. i can probably follow it if it’s carded and you make actual args w/ warrants.

• it was recently brought to my attention that topic ks probably destroy phil affs. i probably agree.

tricks/analytical phil

• terrible for this.

no paradigm

I’m a lay judge. Don’t spread, speak clearly, and collapse on your arguments.

LOL JK - I’ve debated PF for all 4 years of HS but if you treat me like a lay and go slow or make the round entertaining somehow I’ll give you extra speaks!

Preferences

• I can handle some speed, but speak clearly. If I can’t understand something in Constructive, I can’t evaluate it.
• FOR ROUNDS WITH HEAVY SPREADING SEND SPEECH DOCS ESPECIALLY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND REBUTTAL
• Collapse and on your arguments and weigh to make it easy for me to vote
• Don’t bring entirely new arguments in second summary, if your opponents call a timeskew, I’ll accept it
• I’m familiar with Theory, Ks, and progressive debate, but I’m not too good. If you plan to go prog, treat me like a lay and go slow.
• Always be respectful and courteous to your opponent

If you have any other questions about me or my preferences feel free to ask my before round :)

My email: ibu4404@gmail.com

^you can add me to the email chain if you want, but it’s fine if you don’t. If I need a card I’ll ask for it.

Experience:

Competed in Lincoln-Douglas for the past 5 years. I have done mainly traditional debate but I do understand theory, Ks, Plans, and CPs etc etc. 

Preferences:

If you guys want to have an email chain, add me into it please at okatre10@gmail.com

For OCSL Novice:

Run Ks and Theory only if your opponent is understands and agrees to them before the round (or if the rules allow them lol, I know OCSL has some rules surrounding this),  same goes for plans but if the rules allow them then its okay. 

If you run a K, expand on the alternative or the K has no utility. 

Make sure to have all four parts for Theory shells.

If CP or Plan, prove solvency to win on it

I LOVE framework debates, it helps me understand how to flow the impacts too. 

Make sure to signpost and flesh out your args (especially impacts), I wont debate on the flow for you

Most importantly, have fun! OCSL Novice shouldn't be a stressful experience, enjoy the ride guys 

(P.S If you make me laugh, your speaker points will be higher (: )

I do not have much experience with judging.

I am a lay judge and I will be considering the following points:

- Please speak slow, clear, and loud.

- Please articulate your ideas well and in an orderly fashion.

- Do not be rude or arrogant during cross.

- Please do not be overly repetitive and bring up the same point several times to fill time.

- Logic is very important.

Am a lay judge. Please make sure to speak clearly and give an off-time road map

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth and more so a flay judge. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

I am also fine with spreading as long as you send a speech doc.

Email: ammaar.siddiqui@gmail.com

Find the best move for white for 30 speaks!

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. O-O Nf6 7. e5 d5 8. exf6 dxc4 9. Re1+ Be6 10. Qe2 Qxf6 11. Bg5 Qg6 12. bxc3 Bd6 13. Qxc4 O-O 14. Qb5 h6 15. Be3 Rab8 16. Nbd2 a6 17. Qa4 Bh3 18. Nh4 Qg4 19. Qxg4 Bxg4 20. Rab1 Be6 21. a4 b5 22. axb5 axb5 23. f4 Rfe8 24. f5 Bd7 25. Nb3 Re5 26. Bd4 Rxe1+ 27. Rxe1 Nxd4 28. cxd4 b4 29. Nc5 Bxc5 30. dxc5 Rb5 31. Re7 Bc6 32. Rxc7 Be4 33. c6 b3 34. Rc8+ Kh7 35. c7 Rb7 36. Rh8+ Kxh8 37. c8=Q+ Kh7

Yo whats up, I'm Ameet. I'm a flay judge that likes to see fun debates. Make sure to be respectful.

I competed in PF for 6 years, so here are a few things I look out for:

1. Signpost Signpost Signpost (I judge based on my flow, but if you mess up my flow, it will be harder for me to vote for you).
2. Frontline! I expect the second rebuttal to frontline.
3. If you read a sensitive constructive argument with no trigger warning, I will drop you with 0 speaks. The best way to run a trigger warning is by creating an anonymous google form with a general summary of your case. If anyone claims that they are uncomfortable with the topic, you should be switching it out with a more neutral argument.
4. Engage with your opponents! I understand you have a block file with top-level responses, but make sure you're actually engaging with the nuances of your opponents arguments.
5. Weigh and metaweigh!!
6. Summary needs to collapse, extend, frontline, and weigh.
7. No new arguments after first summary, unless it's weighing.
8. Please be civil and kind - debate is a fun activity. If you make me laugh I'll boost your speaks (seriously).
9. I don't need evidence until it is contested in round but if you do need to send it to me send it to anthara@ucla.edu

Oh and please don’t shake my hand :(