About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas throughout college. I look for evidence-backed arguments and competitors should ensure they engage in their fellow competitors' arguments and set precedence for any basis of an affirmative argument. Negatives should debate based on that precedence.

In addition to well-evidenced arguments, I want to hear why your argument matters and outweighs what has already been said and should be clearly articulated.

Finally, I look for a professionalism and decorum, where each debater stands on the strength of their arguments, and not simply relying on their speaking abilities.

Please keep the debate conversational and limit spreading. Also, please limit simply reading from notes; Im looking for the most adept speakers with a great command of the framework; persuading me that their value was superior and best illustrated their argument.

I do not like spreading, especially online as I have a hard time understanding what you are saying if you spread. Also, please try not to mumble as I am somewhat hard of hearing.

I do not like Ks. I do not know how to judge a competitor using one or any kind of progressive debate in LD.

Hey y'all! I'm Jack. I'm a political science undergrad student at the University of Louisville. Highkey I'm obsessed with debate. This was my shizzle. I have a bunch of info below, don't worry too too much about it, just do you and you're chillin. Read the stuff in bold tho. If y'all ever wanna talk about debate and/or have questions about my ballot please reach out, jgeruc@outlook.com.

TLDR: I debated in LD, PF, and Congress for years in Kentucky and have some national circuit experience, I know what I'm talking about. I'm a technical judge so I will judge more on the flow and your arguments instead of your way of speaking, substance will always come 1st. I won't tolerate any bullying, hostility, homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. You're able to walk a fine line of being commanding and powerful while also being respectful. Besides that, do whatever you want, I'm here for y'all and to help.

Experience:

5 qualifications to nationals

- 2x to NCFL in LD

- 2x to NSDA in LD

- 1x to NSDA in the House

My junior year I made it to round 9 at NSDA in LD. My senior year I made it to double octos at NCFL in LD and placed 14th at NSDA in original spoken word poetry.

LD:

Honestly, I have a lot of thoughts about LD and will clarify anything in round so please just ask me questions if you have them but here are a couple things...

Framework:

• I was a consequentialist debater so I prefer debates about methods and implementation with some solid empirics
• Tbh, values don't really matter that much. I care more about value criterion debate because that's material change and shows me how to interpret the round, not some abstract moral principle like a value. In an ideal world for me, everyone would say "I value justice defined as giving each their due. My value criterion is..." and move on with their lives.
• Miss me with that "this is a debate about morals and values" bs cuz girly pop no. If you want to read some heavy framework, go for it and I'll judge it to the best of my ability. That being said, please do it right because I will not hesitate to point it out in the ballot if it just doesn't make sense
• If you wanna appeal to me, please read a "mitigating structural violence"-esque framework. This was my preferred method of debate. We need to center conversations of marginalization and it makes the round more interesting for me to listen to

Arguments in Round:

• Please make sure that you have stats, empirics, etc. to support your arguments because those are the only way that arguments can make sense
• Please signpost

• I love a good counterplan/alternative. I know they're illegal in Kentucky (bs rule) but there are ways to get around that, which I employed more often than not
• Run whatever you want as long as you and your opponent are okay with it, I'll interp anything
• Please weigh your impacts, aka let me know why something matters
• Make sure your arguments connect to your framework

Random Stuff:

• Nothing irks me more than people who go over on time. I will stop flowing at that clock. If you go for more than 10 seconds over I will start deducting speaks. Please call out your opponent for doing this.
• Please don't bully the novices or each other, debate needs to be a welcoming space to survive

PF:

Tbh, probably my least favorite debate format. I did it and was alright but I don't have too strong of opinions on this, just a few things...

• Please cite your sources/cards, I wanna hear empirics
• Extend your impacts
• Crossfire is a conversation, please don't dominate the space either way
• Weigh your arguments
• As always, be respectful and SIGNPOST

Congress:

This form of "debate" (I use the term lightly) has the least amount of judge intervention so I honestly don't really have much to say besides the basics.

• No rehash
• Be persuasive in tone and content
• Engage with the other people in the chamber
• Make sure you're actually asking questions and not just saying "Would you agree..." and then basically restating their speech (happens way too often)
• If you're POing (Bless up g, you doin the lord's work), I'm not gonna be too nitpicky as long as everything runs smoothly and you get times right

Anyways, I'm really looking forward to this and hope that you all get to have fun and grow throughout this. Debate is an educational experience first and foremost so just have some fun and teach me something new!

• Come talk to me after round, odds are I'm bored. I promise I'm nice and I can talk to you about round and try to give advice if you'd like :)

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Pfers: Round should start at start time, that means first word should be spoken at start time. I will dock your speaks by .2 for every minute past start time that the first constructive has not been sent.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), debate coach at Seven Lakes HS (‘23-Current)

Political science major with a focus in international relations/political theory and a philosophy minor.

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round - If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue. Commodification of racism, sexism, etc. any form of discrimination or violence for the ballot is bad. I do not want to see Twitter screenshots about what X debater said.

I apologize in advance for the horrific typos that may be in your ballot. I tend to quickly jot my thoughts down as to not keep tab/debaters waiting too long. I usually fix ballots after rounds, but the deeper we get into elims the less time I have. My ballot is usually just my oral rfd, but if you have any questions just send me an email.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col/Phil > Identity Ks > Tricks/LD Theory

^^^ Based on my level of experience with specific args - For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well.

Tech > truth in most cases - I think my role as a judge is to be an impartial arbiter and evaluate the debate skills of the debaters. For the most part, a dropped argument is a true argument. However, when arguments are equally contested, implicit biases and prior knowledge will inevitably lower the burden of proof for arguments that are more true.

I think almost everything is debatable, will vote on almost anything with a warrant and impact

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing you do and the more judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I don't care how good your evidence is if you don't debate it well. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will still follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L)

Time yourself

-------

Specific Args:

My paradigm for LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it and that it is up for you to debate.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before. I am just less familiar with these literature bases and am better for Ks like cap and security.

2. I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hominem is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated then I am more likely to be convinced by FW.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

CP --- I default to judge kick if there’s no offense on the CP. Creative and niche CPs that actually solve are cool.

DA —- I'll evaluate them in the order of Impact > Link > Uniqueness when no other offense is present. I tend to default to evaluating the round like a policy maker. I can vote on risk of a link if it is contextualized to weighing, but I think it’s also possible to zero the link in rare instances.

Theory—- My threshold for voting on theory is relatively higher than for other args.

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I err towards the team defending against theory. In CX, theory is fine since there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in CX as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry.

Disclosure: I do not want to see your laptop screen after the speech. If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Your best bet with me for PF is to run traditional or policy arguments.

If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks and give you at least a 28.

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

I will judge the round like a policy maker under and offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

Weighing - I notice that in most PF rounds, weighing doesn’t end up playing a large part in my decision making process despite the fact that the impact is the first place I look to when evaluating the round. This is because PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not tell me why, for example, I should prefer time frame over magnitude. They also do not contextualize the weighing to the amount of the impact that is actually accessed.

K:You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes but that is doubtful.

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

LD ---

I ran phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge. The only thing my high school experience affects is my familiarity with LD theory and tricks. - I will judge these rounds based on my knowledge of theory in policy.

I judge phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. As in, I tend to switch back and forth between LD being about truth testing vs competing worlds depending on the content of the round. In a policy v phil round you should explicitly tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

Phil: yes <3 love it but only when it is substantial. I think debates like Kant v Util are fun. I have a pretty good background for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.)

Theory/Tricks: I might be unfamiliar with some args you make. This means my capabilities to flow your 32 point analytical 1NC shell decreases.

----

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there.

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, are funny, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

• I'm a volunteer and new to judging
• I've read over some information about this topic
• Please keep your pace and slow 
• I appreciate step-by-step analysis  to show your point

Explain why your arguments matter. 

Please be respectful to your opponents. If you need to talk quickly, please make sure you do so with a clear voice.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

I prefer quality over speed. Prefer succint over verbose..