jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

"It's your case"

This is my central judging philosophy. I am a former PF/LD competitor, former coach, and 20 year judge of speech and debate events.

"It's your case"

Clear definitions, framework, and clearly organized contentions help me to follow your thoughts and imagine a policy direction. As an LD debater you are not here to build a policy, but to create a philosophically sound case to persuade and to support a direction for policymakers.

"It's your case"

Build and defend your case and debate your opponent's case. The focus is YOUR case. Please do not allow yourself to get bogged down by calling a reasonable framework insulting names.

"It's my ballot"

This is the part that I understand is a little self-centered. I have judged many LD rounds including a national final. My ballot will be an honest assessment. Please don't make me angry by getting caught up on cards and labeling things abusive definitions because you disagree. Argue. Persuade me that your framework is superior.

"It's our round"

Be respectful, be informative, and expect my full attention as your judge.

I am the head coach at Shady Side Academy in Pittsburgh. I was not a debater in HS or college and have crashed on getting up to speed on the ins and outs of debate over the last few years on the job. I have judged LD at most levels (local, state, and NSDA nationals) and Congress at all levels (local, state, NSDA, and TOC). I have coached students who placed 8th in NSDAs in LD and 7th in NSDAs in Congress.

I am a fairly traditional judge. I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast or card dump to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I probably lean 50%truth/50% tech. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible if dealing with a policy or policy action, and conceivable if dealing with theory or framework.

I am not a fan of Ks or off-topic shells. My PhD is in History so I can understand K-type arguments, but they go against the spirit of the activity in my opinion.

I have done LD (both as a competitor and judge) for multiple years. When judging a round, I first evaluate which framework is left standing, and then I evaluate all impacts in the round under that framework. If you don't explicitly link the impact to the framework, then I won't do it for you. You will win the round if you can directly link your impacts to the winning framework and clearly show me, and tell me why, your impacts are better than your opponents.

If something is dropped, you have to tell me that it was dropped, and only then will I actually extend it. If you say something was dropped and it wasn't, I will not extend it, so don't make up drops. I can handle speed, but I prefer you speak at a conversational pace and definitely do not spread. If you do talk fast, make sure you are clear enough that I can actually follow along.

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

I am a parent judge who has judged LD for three years. I don't know everything about the topic, so inform me about your side the best you can, especially if you use a more complex framework . I like running a traditional round (no spreading, kritiks, etc). Clearly roadmap your speech beforehand so I can flow and understand your points better. I value truth>tech and flow CrossX. But most of all, have fun! That's the purpose of debate after all.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge, in my 4th year of judging. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I appreciate off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!

You don't have to read everything.

Try to stay calm and have fun. In addition to fun being a good thing generally, an attitude of enjoyment will also lend itself to confidence and clear thinking.
Try hard not to get overly aggressive and resort to character attacks on anyone, whether they be opponents or political figures, except when it may be considered a direct piece of evidence to an end (for example, X does immoral things, voters don't like immoral things, so X won't get elected to Y).

Courtesy, especially professional courtesy between one another, is expected of competitors.

No personal attacks to anyone, whether they're in the room or not. At most, criticize individual arguments.

The more organized you are, the more likely I am to vote the way you expect.

If you speak so fast that I start missing things, I will not expect your opponent to have caught the small things.

I'm generally a traditional judge.

I can follow whatever philosophy you throw out there, but if it doesn't matter who wins the framework debate, just say so and feel free to ignore it.

I like clarity of thought over borrowed argument,

I like cross examination and prompt and accurate reply

I don't mind to give few seconds extra even it goes beyond a minute as long as point is being made

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I am a big believer in the traditional goal and values of Lincoln-Douglas debate. One v. one debate of values, not policy and not fact debates unless they advance the overarching value debate. I competed in the event from 2003-2006. I went to both CFL and NSDA (then called NFL) nationals multiple years and debated on the circuit. I am currently an attorney who works in a prosecutor's office. I only provide this so that you might know the kind of experiences that inform my everyday life and thus what may or may not strike me as important.

In terms of the round, I do not flow cross-ex. If you believe your opponent made an important concession during cross you must raise it in your next speech. Otherwise, I enjoy clean but aggressive debating. Timing yourself is preferred but I will keep official time.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I’m a parent judge - take that as you will. My daughter participates in LD and Parli debate, so I’m very familiar with the debate flow.

Quality > quantity.

Don’t spread or read incredibly fast. You’ll lose speaker points and chances are that I won’t be able to understand you.

Have fun!

PF: I am a former public forum debater. This means that I have debate experience, so I will be judging off of flow. Make sure that you carry through your points and also emphasize your impacts in final focus; also, please give me voting points in final focus. My general rule is to accept new arguments through pro summary, as well as in any of the crossfires. I also generally grade likelihood & magnitude logarithmically instead of linearly. Unless there is something particularly egregious, I will be judging based on the arguments you're making, and not based upon speaking ability. Note that I can't promise I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM. My 'speaking points' are an evaluation of your argumentation.

LD: I haven't ever done LD, but I have judged it before. Basically, here's what I'm looking for: Impacting to your value and clashing and weighing about values. I do have a plausibility limit on what I will buy, although not an especially strict one. In general, I like more specific value usage instead of goodness, correctness, morality, or similar terms. I don't care about speaking ability unless there's something especially egregious, but I can't promise that I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM. My 'speaking points' are an evaluation of your argumentation.

Parliamentary/Policy: I have debate experience, but haven't judged or debated in either of these events. Similar rules apply to the other areas, but I just don't know enough to give specific feedback. I do judge off flow and don't have speaking preferences. Note that I can't promise I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM.

Extemp: I have done extemp before but have never judged it. I will weigh argumentation over speaking ability given my debate background. Don't get me wrong, speaking is important; make sure your delivery is as clean as possible. I will be thoroughly considering your logic, statistics, reasoning, etc. in judging.

Speech: I've never done or judged speech, and have rarely watched it, so consider me the equivalent of a parent judge or lay judge. I do appreciate solid argumentation though in OO and Impromptu. I don't mind if you do non-traditional impromptu, focusing on the economy, lives, or some other practical area; basically debate and PF-style reasoning is fine for me in impromptu. In events where you are presenting a piece, I will take piece quality into account on top of performance value.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.