Speak slowly and clearly. Stay respectful. I encourage direct refutation. Quality > quantity. The number of arguments you have left standing is less important than how well you are able to convey them. Be kind and good luck.

Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

[if the room is empty and I'm not there yet, please feel free to go on in]

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now. I always disclose. If I forget to, please remind me (I think this is where you learn the most).

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember:magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it. Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

Affiliations:

LAMDL. Previous affiliations don't really matter as of now.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it.

I lean neg on condo, go for whatever cp you want, and I love well articulated theory arguments. Key words Well Articulated.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Debate is a game; play to win. I'll listen to anything, but I'm partial to humans and other animals having rights and death and suffering being bad. Y'all have to weigh your impacts and actually do the arguing, though. Clash is key. Speed is fine, slow down for your tags. If you say something egregious I'll assume Hanlon's Razor and we'll talk.

Happy to answer any questions you have before the round.

add me to the email chain: hbartels@lareina.com

Hello, I am a former Debater I love LD and PF. I did debate for 3 years and attended SWSDI at ASU and take that information as you please :) I am lay debater who will be flowing the round. I am okay with Counter Plans and Plans as long as you are able to support them throughout your case. I am Okay with K's and progressive I just do not prefer it and if you want the best feedback I would try to run Lay. I love a good Value and Value Criterion Debate although I do not want that to be the only thing you talk about during the entire debate. I do not vote on who I think is a better speaker I vote based off who I feel is a better Debater. A great debater is able to flow all arguments and evidences through the entire round,. I also do no not like arguments from the negation saying that affirmation is non topical if they have a unique plan there’s nothing wrong with that and I do buy any of those argument saying it’s unfair. I just want you to do what you need to have a successful round.

Can you please send your cases to this email. Belchf1@unlv.nevada.edu

:)

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

For cases I like using speechdrop. - I don't shake hands. - I am a speaks fairy -.

TLDR: Ive been involved in debate for over seven years. Explain your arguments well, esp. your links to your impacts. I prefer logical lines of thinking over card after card, Im big on framework and impacts, i'll vote on majority of things (read list under augmentation for more). IF YOU CAN PLEASE HIGHLIGHT THE PARTS OF THE CARD YOU ARE READING!

Qualifications I am a theater major, LD and DI college national qualifier and a pre-graduate communication masters degree candidate.

Overarching Idea for debate etiquette

I greatly dislike if someone is a straight up @$$ to one another. Being mean = terrible speaks

By all means swear in your cases! As long as its not at your opponent.

Try and keep me entertained, debate can get a little boring for judges when you’re just reading off a laptop. Try and be energetic and do something every so often to get my attention if you see me slipping.Bonus speaks if you can make me laugh

Argumentation (1-10 scale on how much I enjoy it. 10/10 = I will vote on it, 0/10 = I will not vote on it

Impact/Weighing (10/10)

Framework: (8/10)

Theory: (Be careful, 6/10) (will NOT vote for disclosure theory)

T: (6/10)

Performance: (5/10) don't be abusive w them pls

K: (4.5/10) I need a real good explanation, will vote on them I guess - after you read your cards, take a beat and explain it to me in simpler terms, i get the K and how it functions but sometimes the cards make it muddy

Narratives : (4/10) It's unfair for a opponent to defend against your own personal story. Use it as an impact not a voting issue and ill value it more.

Triggers: (X/10) Depends on violation - be realistic.

For LD I believe that fundamentally

1) Good FW is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) it is the debaters job to prove a general principal. I am generous with AFF fiat but not unrealistic

3) the proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Make me believe that your side is better. give me analytics rather than card after card.

Personal Notes

DO NOT EVER CALL YOUR OPPONENT HOMOPHOBIC/RACIST/ECT If what they say is that obvious, I will know.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there. (I get it, my anxiety attacks freeze me up entirely)

Updated for TOC 2023

Email for chain – vishanc4@gmail.com

Conflicts: Harker, Harvard-Westlake

Tl;dr: good for: CPs, DAs, T, non-postmodern Ks. bad for: tricks, pomo, theory debates, phil.

Longer version:

1. I enjoy judging. TOC 2023 will likely be the last tournament I judge for a while. I know how much effort goes into preparing for debate tournaments, let alone a season end tournament like the TOC. I am excited to hear what you have to say.

2. Speed - you should not go your top speed, 80-90% is probably fine most of the time, maybe err on the slow side on (especially short) analytics.

***Theory is an entirely different ballgame - I don't know if theory arguments are just getting shorter or if I'm not catching as much because people go too fast, but people need to slow down a substantial amount. This is one of the most important parts of this paradigm, it is also the most ignored.

3. I care about evidence more than the average judge. I usually read the most important cards after the debate and compare what the evidence actually says against the debaters’ explanations. Evidence is almost never perfect – pointing out flaws in your opponents’ cards, comparing author qualifications, etc. will result in higher points.

4. I will only vote on arguments that I understand and can explain back to the other debater. I will never vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

5. Arguments should be complete in the first constructive in which they are presented. CPs need to have competition and solvency arguments explicitly made in the NC. DAs must have uniqueness. ACs must include solvency arguments. Ks should have a semblance of a FW argument in the NC. Incomplete arguments can be dispatched by brief, smart analytics.

6. General argument preferences – I prefer quality arguments related to the topic. All things equal, I prefer to hear a core topic DA instead of politics, a K with a strong link to the aff over a consult CP, etc. Of course, if you execute a niche argument really well, go for it, just be aware that the less familiar I am with it, the less likely I am to fully understand it, and the more likely it is that you get a decision that you may not like.

A. Policy arguments (CPs, DAs, etc.)

–I am best for these types of arguments.

-Impact calc + turns case are underutilized/usually a game winner if you do them well.

-The Politics DA is the worst argument that I vote on routinely. Dunking on politics during CX (while still being respectful of course)/dismantling it in the 1ar will likely result in higher points. Unfortunately, affs rarely do this and instead just read 4 impact defense cards :(

-I do not default judge kick, but I am open to it.

-I am open to most CP theory (conditionality, PICs, agent CPs, etc.) but am a hard sell on LD nonsense (must spec status in speech, no neg fiat, etc.). One condo is generally ok, two is pushing it, three or more is no good. However, debates that come down to 1ar theory are among my least favorite to judge (unless it’s a slam dunk)

-That being said, most CP theory arguments other than condo are likely better as competition arguments rather than theory

-I've noticed a proliferation of really horrible process CPs. I don’t like them. Most of these are consult CPs that lack a reason why bindingness/consultation are key – these should easily be beaten by permutations. If you have qualified cards from the literature about the topic (or even close to being about the topic), though, I am good for these.

B. Topicality/Theory

-I like well executed T debates.

-But I'm usually not thrilled to be judging Nebel over and over again. Nebel/can't spec should be viewed as a last resort (cases where the aff is very very small). I will probably vote aff on the “PICs argument” if both sides debate this argument equally.

-I find myself usually unpersuaded by “only semantics matter” claims on T. A well thought out limits claim is definitely the way to go in front of me.

-On T I’m probably 50-50 on the competing interps/reasonability debate.

-In theory debates, I am generally persuaded by reasonability + drop the argument. I do not like judging theory debates a whole lot.

-I would not read an RVI in front of me. I have a hard time understanding the warrants for these. It will be nearly impossible to get me to vote on one.

-I prefer not to judge debates with out of round violations (disclosure etc.) The exception is if your opponent does not disclose first 3 last 3 - include screenshots/evidence and this is a near slam dunk. Other disclosure violations (round reports, open source, etc.) can be easily beaten by reasonability in front of me. Things like "misdisclosure/opponent lied" are uncomfortable to judge/you must include screenshots/definitive evidence in your speech docs.

C. Ks

-Yes - Neolib, Afropessimism, Set Col, other "structural" identity Ks, Security

-No - pomo. It’s not that am not ideologically against these Ks, I am just very unfamiliar with them which will make it hard for you to win them in front of me. It's unlikely you get higher than a 28.5 unless you are very good at explaining your argument.

-I probably lean neg in FW/K aff debates. Negs should articulate an impact outside of "limits because limits" and affs should have counterinterpretations that solve most of neg offense

-When going for a K on the neg, if your only link is some fancy packaging of "fiat bad" I am not the judge for you.

-Links should be contextualized/turn the case. This does not mean that all your links need to be to the plan; rather, if you explain why your links turn the case under the aff FW, you are in a good spot.

-Ideally the 2NR does most if not all of their work on the line-by-line – I’m fine with a short overview to explain thesis/impact but I’m not a fan of the 4-minute overviews followed by the neg saying “this was in the overview” to answer every 1AR argument.

- Neg teams should frame their link not only against the plan alone but through the lens of the permutation. Likewise, affs should frame their link turns not through the lens of the status quo, but through the alternative.

D. Philosophy

- I’m most well-versed in consequentialism but I think I understand Kant and some political theory a decent amount. I’m at ELI5 level for almost every other type, so tread carefully. You do not need an explicit standard text.

-I’m pretty tired of every phil debate I judge coming down to induction fails/consequentialism impossible.

E. Tricks

-“Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!” – Trix kids

7. Evidence ethics – if a debater claims their opponent committed an evidence ethics violation, such as clipping, they will stake the debate on that claim. If there’s proof that the accused the debater clipped, they get an L and the lowest points I can give. If the opposing debater did not clip, the accusing party gets an L and the lowest points I can give.

I don’t read along in the speech doc…usually. Usually if you’re talking, I’m flowing. Sometimes, however, I look if I suspect clipping is occurring. If I catch you clipping, I will let the debate finish, but you will lose. I won’t catch everyone who clips, I don’t think it’s my job to constantly check everyone, so when I check/when I don’t may be somewhat arbitrary, but the easy way to not get caught is to not cheat.

If I call clear (multiple times) and you don't clear up/I cannot understand the words you are saying, it is clipping.

Things like bracketing, cutting an author who concludes the other way (as long as it’s not egregious), etc. aren’t round-stopping issues to me. However, I am extremely receptive to theory arguments about them, and doing those things will tank your speaks.

This is how I evaluate these issues, even if no ethics challenge is raised.

If I notice...

-Card from an article which concludes the other way - your speaks get tanked (25) if you don't go for the flow/it is not egregious; you lose if it is integral to your strategy/you would lose the debate without it

-Card with paragraphs missing - you lose

-Clipping - you lose

-Cards that are miscited - you lose

8. Ways to get good speaker points

-Demonstrating topic/content knowledge

-Debating about author quals

-High quality/not scarcely under-highlighted evidence

-Going for an impact turn well

9. Last housekeeping things

-You must share your speech docs with your opponent - email is preferable

- Each debate will have 1 winner and 1 loser. The speech times are set as is prep time. You can’t use CX as prep time. Asking for me to give you a 30 will result in you getting no higher than a 26.

-I like evidence a lot, but good analytics >>> bad cards. Even if your card is A+, you only get credit for how good you explain it in later speeches/when you extend it.

- Debate is a communicative activity, so I don't make my decision by reading through all the cards in the speech doc after the debate. I think I'm a pretty good flow, so I don't backflow unless I think it was my fault. If it's not on my flow, you don't get credit for it - emphasizing/slowing down on certain arguments will greatly enhance my ability to understand them. People need to slow wayyyyy down on theory.

-Please be nice to your opponent

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-I’ve judged like 3 rounds on the water topic. Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Hi, I am Darshan. I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.

Good Luck at the Tournament!

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped. 

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to a theory argument. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Lynrbook 22

Debated circuit LD for 3 years at Lynbrook. Also did a good amount of traditional debate.

Add me on the email chain: gupta.aakash@gmail.com

---Circuit LD---

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory, Phil, Trix

3 - Stock K's (Cap K, security, etc.)

4-5 - Other K's

LARP --

This was mostly what I did on aff and a decent amount on neg for most of my debate years. As a debater, I thought case debate was overrated since I would rather just moot all my opponent's offense with NC's and CP's, but they can make debates more interesting.

Intrinsic disad perms are really cool imo (though you probably shouldn't lose to theory). Intrinsic perms in general are really cool I guess.

T/Theory --

People should probably spend more time on paradigm issues. Reasonability + DTA is underrated, but I don't lean one way or another.

I default competing interps, DTD, no RVI's.

Phil --

I probably don't know the lit, so you should be able to explain it and how offense operates under it. Please have an impact calc section that explains how offense operates underneath your fw. Your opponent shouldn't need cx to understand your NC (even if it is a common one).

You guys do realize there are more arguments you can make against consequentialism other than sketchy calc indicts, right?

Trix --

I like logic trix (trivialism triggers, etc.) and phil trix. Fine with burden tricks. Dislike theory tricks since they often lack actual developed warrants.

Don't hide tricks within arguments. Every new argument should start on a new line in the 1AC and 1NC or your speaks won't be good.

All arguments need a clear claim, warrant, and implication.

K's --

I read a few kritiks but almost never went for them.

Aff-leaning on framework. I am more inclined to believe that debates should center around the resolution instead of traversing random fantasies.

Most kritik cards just assert a theory of power but lack any warrants for why the theory of power is accurate.

Stop using buzzwords and explain your theory of power coherently in the speech it is given. I'm not going to vote for arguments I don't understand in the speech it was given.

Email: michaelgeorgeharris1@gmail.com

Qualifications/background:

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualled to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently at Lynbrook and Silver Creek High Schools. I judge and coach all forms of speech and debate.

LD PARADIGM

I don't see myself as having too many conscious biases against certain kinds of argument.

I'll listen to all styles -- K, policy, phil, theory, etc. I care more about how you argue your positions than the actual content of the positions.

There was way more phil and theory read when I debated, so feel free to go for that stuff, although on theory I definitely do not default to an offense-defense paradigm (if that's how you want me to evaluate the theory flow, you have to argue explicitly for that).

I also think I may be a good judge for kritiks because I mainly coached k debate this year.

I'm probably the worst at evaluating policy v policy debates. When I did LD, it had not yet mutated into one-person policy. I can still keep up if you line-by-line each others' arguments and do weighing, but if your speeches are just long overviews that list out a bunch of impacts without engaging the other side, I guarantee I will get lost.

Here are the things I like to see:

1. Good, explicit weighing, a clear ballot story, and clearly implicating/explaining the function of your arguments.
2. Original analysis as opposed to merely cards.

That's about it honestly, but you'd be surprised how few rounds nowadays contain those things.

Side note: I won't vote on disclosure theory, because I feel weird about voting someone down for something that happened outside of the debate.

PF PARADIGM

IMPORTANT: Please, please, please be fast with sending evidence. If it's taking too long I'm going to insist on continuing the debate.

Second rebuttal/summary obviously can't frontline everything, so make sure you focus on answering the responses that are most threatening to your side.

The final focus is so short that you really have to focus -- narrow things down -- and explain not only why your side is ahead, but anticipate/answer the strongest reason your opponent could provide for why they're ahead. Don't ONLY weigh, also respond to the other side's weighing -- or else the debate might end up looking an awful lot like a tie.

I do, admittedly, like theory and kritiks in other events. In PF, not so much. Not saying you can't read them -- but you probably shouldn't do so if your strat is just to read them bc you've seen on this paradigm that I mainly judge other events in which those positions are more popular. **Definitely do not run these positions at lay tournaments/against lay debaters. I personally think one of the benefits of PF is that it's a good activity for people who don't like fast/technical debate styles. So I'd prefer you don't use theory/kritiks to ruin their day.

Current LD coach. Preferred rate of delivery is conversational, in my opinion spreading isn't useful or necessary for this style of debate. The value and criterion are essential to a case, and will have great impact in how I decide who wins a round. They must make sense and flow throughout the round. Final rebuttals should include voting issues.

Please email speech docs to: mei4judge@gmail.com

TLDR; Flay judge; did policy debate at the national level back in college (this was a REALLY long time ago), so treat me as somebody who mostly has no idea what you are talking about, I'm not up to date on the current policy meta.

General:

Tech>truth, tabula rasa until you're racist/sexist/homophobic/personally offensive in any way, in which case I will instantly drop you with the lowest speaks possible. Defense is not sticky, weighing in the 2AR is imperative, make sure you extend arguments made in the AC/NC clearly across the flow and signpost well so I can flow you, especially if you're speaking fast. Tell me why cards actually matter instead of just throwing around their names in rebuttal. Trad>circuit debate, give me voters in the NR/2AR, I will try to remain as noninterventionist as possible and eval based off the flow. I look for you to creatively extend your contentions and CPs and think out of the box in your 1AR/2AR, 2NRs, those are interesting for me.

Prog arguments:

I hate speed, I'm not the best flower and I'll probably drop some of your arguments if you spread. I strongly dislike/don't really understand k affs, kritiks, friv t, and non-topical arguments. Avoid tricks as I wouldn't know what hit me and won't vote you up or down for them.

VC/phil debate:

Go for it. Phil debate is an integral part of LD. I default util in the absence of any framing, but if one side offers framing and the other side does not, I'll evaluate based off of framing presented. Just make sure to keep it understandable and don't throw singular cards from random philosophers around as a complete framework.

Gordon Krauss

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Debated at Claremont, 2019-2021

Coaching for Peninsula, 2021-Present

General

I have lots of biases. I will decide debates technically, but I think it's helpful to know how I think about debates. For that reason, this is relatively long and hopefully somewhat informative.

Please have the email ready to send before start time.

Answer arguments in the order they are presented.

Arguments need warrants in the speech they were introduced. I'll be willing to ignore new arguments entirely if something is said about it or if it is introduced in the 2AR.

If debating is relatively equal, I will read cards to decide who has a better argument that is consistent with the explanations given in the final retals. Sometimes I will read cards regardless, especially if instructed to do so.

Policy

I most enjoy policy arguments that are supported by recent, high-quality evidence. I think zero-risk is incredibly unlikely, unless a team makes an argument that is incoherent (e.g. bill passed).

Against process counterplans, I am more persuaded by perm do cp with reasons that interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good. I could be persuaded by limited intrinsicness if supported by an argument that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive, but function alone is equally winnable. Textual competition alone is an obvious disaster. The implication of counterplans must be textually AND functionally competitive is that permutations can be either textually or functionally intrinsic, but not both.

I actually do have a lot of opinions about policy arguments, but they don't seem to affect how I make decisions too much, so do whatever (besides wipeout).

Theory

Go for a reverse voting issue and I'll give reverse speaker points (30 = 1, 26 = 4, 28.5 = 2.5, etc.) It's also impossible to win.

If you're neg, please consider a disadvantage instead! This also applies to anything labeled a trick.

Totally don't care that the 1AR is hard. You're making it harder when the justification for every theory argument is that x argument skews your time.

International fiat: Bad. The neg can fiat functionally infinite actors, and any combination of them, to do whatever the neg wants them to. This makes generating deficits essentially impossible and is magnified when the neg fiats multiple actors. The best aff interpretation would probably depend on the topic, given 'USFG' is not in every resolution.

Process: Maybe bad. You would need a much better interpretation than 'process CPs bad' but most that are read are questionably legitimate. They almost certainly don't compete, see policy section.

Solvency Advocates: I understand the concern, but as read it's almost always unclear what counts as a solvency advocate. If the counterplan is vague and not supported by evidence, I would be more persuaded by a deficit (regardless of whether or not you have evidence) than a theory argument about solvency advocates.

Important: These are obviously not reasons to reject the team (drop the debater). I will reject the team for PICs bad, international fiat, etc. if and only if the 1AR says I should and the 2NR says nothing at all.

Conditionality: Usually good. The 2NR needs to do impact calculus, and actually play defense to aff arguments. The aff should give reasons why they need straight turns against CPs. Time and strategy skew don't matter because every argument intentionally skews both. The number has never mattered to me, because I care far more about why the neg should be stuck with straight turns than the 1AR being difficult.

Topicality

I don't love judging topicality debates, but I judge them a lot. I tend to agree with the aff, but I probably vote neg more. The neg needs evidence that explicitly defines a word in the resolution. If the word the neg is defining is in the plan text, the neg must present an alternative to plan text in a vacuum in the 2NR. The aff needs to win that they meet that interpretation or say theirs is better.

I think predictability matters more than limits. I tend to think that trying to make the topic as small as possible usually results in an interpretation that no reasonable person could predict. I could also be persuaded by overlimiting arguments, and both sides should have a case-list to substantiate their limits arguments.

Reasonability means that the aff can win if their interpretation solves a sufficient amount of neg offense for the substance lost to outweigh the marginal difference between the two interpretations. It does not mean anything if the 2AR is we meet.

K

I'm a fan when they indict core 1AC assumptions and include lots of re-highlightings, evidence indicts, and smart tricks. I'm not a fan when it's the fiat k or there isn't a link.

I'm most familiar with different variations of security/capitalism but also pretty good for the K against soft-left affirmatives.

The best framework interpretation is that the aff gets to compare the consequences of the plan against critiques of their assumptions. I will probably be persuaded by the interpretation that is closest to this. I find 'K's bad' and 'don't weigh the case' equally bad, but I will hear them out. Arguments must be complete and consistent throughout speeches. It's not as easy to explain why the aff's epistemology or representations are bad and what we should do instead, but it does increase your chances of winning tremendously.

Agreeing that the aff can weigh the case means the neg needs a turns case/alt solves the case argument, an existential impact, and/or substantial defense to the case. If the neg does have this, I will be confused if the affs only answer is extinction outweighs. The aff should focus on winning a permutation and alt fails argument, or impact turn the K.

T-Framework

aff: If you aren't reading a plan, you should be prepared to explain why topicality is bad. I find that hard to understand when the 1AR proliferates short, very similar DAs to topicality; identify the impacts or internal links that you're turning and play defense to the others. Counter interp is usually irrelevant because it's arbitrary and unlimiting, but if you're interpretation is grounded in evidence that defines words in the resolution, or explained as only providing uniqueness for your stuff, I can be convinced that it matters.

neg: I'm better for fairness than clash, but either is fine. Defense is important, and the 2NR should pick a couple arguments and explain them in the context of aff offense. I can be convinced that debate is broadly capable of producing some sort of subjectivity shift but I can also be convinced that a single debate is not capable of changing subjectivities, or that the neg accesses it better.

I'd probably enjoy a K v K debate. That said, I think I'm bad for the neg because the aff gets to perm and the neg needs a link.

Philosophy

I am not the biggest fan of philosophy arguments and I have done very little reading. If your philosophy isn't tricks and is supported by evidence and examples, I should be mediocre. However, if you do not treat me like I know nothing, you may be disappointed with the decision. I follow traditional framework debates much better than dense philosophy being read on the national circuit because the framework is explained like I'm clueless and no one drops (dis)advantages.

I vote for extinction outweighs against philosophy positions often and I think it's a good argument, especially when supported by arguments about epistemic modesty or humility.

Misc.

Please number arguments whenever possible. Referencing the number in subsequent speeches makes it much easier to flow.

Insert re-highlighting if it comes from the original card. If you're reading sections of the article that are not in the original card, read it.

A marked doc does not mean deleting the cards you didn't read. Please minimize dead time and start cross-ex immediately after the speech ends, even if you need a marked doc. There is no waiting until it's sent.

Ask questions or post-round if you'd like.

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him

tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation (claims and warrants and impacts AND implications for the round that tell me how to evaluate the content) are extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.

I am good for K v K, Policy v K, LD Phil debates, Policy v T 2nrs, K v T

i am ok-at-best for nuanced policy rounds

I am probably bad for pomo, psych, and tricks

debate thoughts

I think in round violence against your opponent or me can be a compelling ballot

Clipping ends the round

I'll evaluate arguments on the flow -- if it's not on my flow it might be my fault for missing it but it might also be your fault for spreading analytics that are super important -- if you think something should be in the RFD, it's good practice to make it clear.

I think explaining function of arguments and warrants as to why the function works in K affs is important in the 2ar

I like pastries and coffee cough cough

I think numbering arguments is good practice

I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.

Impact scenarios with internal link explanations are good

I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option

Phil positions should have carded offense

I don't want to intervene but sometimes rounds are genuinely irresolvable and in these instances I don't feel awful about making intuitive judgements that are usually informed by strength of link and reasonability.

I'm a very expressive judge, my face will tell you a lot of things about how my flow is going

A little bit of clarifying flex prep is okay

Don't read win 30 in front of me

Email: bloayza2019@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school debate for DMHS in LAMDL, now doing my 4th year of college debate at CSUF

I ain't asking for much, just don't be racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and basically, anything that might make a competitor uncomfortable or might make ME uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable with spreading but if you spread through crucial arguments I may not catch it at times so if you want me to flow your most important arguments then slow down a bit. In the realm of online debate sometimes I might not catch arguments if they're not given in conversational speed.

IF you are reading this as an LD debater you will get more info reading the policy page to get a better idea

==LD==

Don't run tricks in front of me. I will not get them, which means I won't vote on them. This also goes for theory debates theory has to be very good at explaining violations and why this is a voting issue or else leave me out of it.

Nebel T isn't a real argument, I do not care who Nebel is.

I probably won't vote on Reverse Voting Issues, they don't make a lot of sense to me as a policy debater (but can possibly be persuaded)

==Policy Debate==

Framing: Framing arguments are a very easy way for me to vote for you, I find it something easy to vote on when teams tell me how I should evaluate the round and why evaluating the round that way is good. This also means that having the role of the ballot/judge argument would be very effective in persuading my decision but these arguments need warrants to them.

K: I'm comfortable judging K's. I'm very comfortable with set col literature and I am familiar with afropess, ableism, and cap literature. Don't worry if I'm not familiar with your K literature all I ask for is a more thorough explanation of your literature and your theory of power. In order to win the K for me, you need to have a link, and if the link is vaguely explained/generic then I really won't buy that you link. If you do link what does that mean and why is that an indictment of the aff (what's the impact).

Kaffs: I'm cool with people running Kaffs and I won't immediately vote them down but I do have to require a good explanation of the aff.

DA: you can win a DA by itself if you have impact framing and how that impact outweighs the affs impacts and part of that impact framing you need to win uniqueness. You also need to win a link on how the aff causes the impacts of the DA. DA must have all its parts in order for me to evaluate it, it must have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and more importantly an impact.

CP: I also vote for CPs with or without a DA, the DA in my mind is not necessary for a CP but that means proving the competitiveness of the CP and why the CP is preferable over that aff and that means why it solves better for the impacts of the aff or if you're running this with a DA why the CP solves and doesn't link to the DA.

T/FW: In order for me to vote for T you need to win a few questions, why you're model of debate is good, you also need to win how they violate and why that's bad for the round. You need to extend your standards/reasons to prefer your model of debate over theirs.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Hi!

Lamdl alumni,

Debated for bravo medical magnet high school.

The first few years I ran mainly policy affs and negs, then my last year I ran a k aff on chicana feminism, and set col/cap ks on the neg.

spreading is fine, just make sure you are very clear.

Disclose as soon as possible pls.

Debate should be fun so run what you like (however any hurtful arguments will not be tolerated).

Be respectful, nice and have fun!

add me to the email chain please: pantojaasenat@gmail.com.

Policy affs

I ran policy affs my first few years of debate. Make sure you’re winning your solvency and preferably a framing argument as to why the aff is important within this space.

For the neg, case turns ! also solvency deficits.

Ks & k affs

I like them. This however doesn’t mean I know all about them so make sure you really explain your theory of power and really flesh out your links. If you want to win the alt, make sure everyone knows what your alt actually does. Specific aff links> generic links, 1 off K with a lot of substance are probably some of the best debates. In terms of framework make sure its clear why your interp should be preferred,

CP/DA

Make sure your CP is competitive with the aff and you have a good net benefit.

I get easily persuaded by good permutations, so make them and also don't drop them (both sides).

Make sure to explain that your disads ow the aff. impact calc! On the aff, link turns!

T/Theory

education>fairness. Make sure you’re contextualizing your impacts to the round and the space.

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton. Teaching and judging debate since 2017. 

thoughts on how I decide

> I live for when debaters take the presentation of their arguments seriously. I am good for speaker points if you: get off your blocks more, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/args snappy names, don't spread at top speed, give an overview, be organized, speak directly to me, etc.

> Read what you want, however you want, I don't care. I'll take any strategically applied argument into serious consideration for the ballot. However, don't rely on speed, quantity of arguments, or techy/blippy arguments. I'm good with speed but I am not the fastest flower so keeping up can be difficult for me, please take that into consideration.

> My decisions are usually based on a combo of meeting your burdens as aff/neg and controlling the big picture of the round. Most of the time this will come down to telling me how I should frame and weigh impacts. I need clash, comparisons, and warrants for that otherwise I'll decide myself what impacts matter the most. 

> General: perms, links, solvency, and impacts need to be clear about how we get from point A to point B, don't lose sight of your warrants. - Policy v K: read a TVA. I don't think K's are unfair but I may be convinced for a round. I'm not interested in you solving for the K, I’m persuaded by models that center policy/education for the purpose of doing good in the direction of the K. How can T/FW/debate be used for the intents and purposes of the K? the more you answer this question and leverage your response against inevitable impact turns, the better off you'll be.

> To make both our lives easier, have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening and straight up tell me why you win. for example, tell me what you're winning and what your opponent is losing, etc. i'm not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. I am very receptive to this.

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I am currently a debater at Georgetown.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Policy debates:

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

LD

Would prefer not to judge debates about silly theory arguments, RVIs, T arguments written by coaches, or other tricks. Err on the side of extra explanation for LD-specific things.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

I am a parent judge with some opinions on Public Forum debate format. I was never a debater myself, and my opinions come from the perspective of a parent judge.

1) While I believe PF should be accessible to a non-debater (like myself), I feel strongly that PF debaters tend to be loose with paraphrasing. In particular, second speakers can tend to be overreaching with facts and paraphrasing. As a scientist by training, I like evaluating on evidence. I trust cut cards way more than I trust paraphrased statements.

2) I think it is helpful if both teams disclose their cases to each other (and to me as a judge) prior to the round. This is best done immediately after the coin flip. My email for pre-round disclosure is smsung@post.harvard.edu.

3) It's more important to win the ballot than to get high speaker points. In my opinion, there is a lot of inflation in speaks. A perfect 30 or even anything in the 29 range should be reserved for truly outstanding, mind blowing performances. These scores should be awarded for speeches that a judge will remember for years. I will follow the scoring rubric, and a 27 from me may be a 29 from another judge.

4) I am fussy about grammar. For example, it bugs me when people start a sentence with "my partner and me" instead of "my partner and I." Debate and especially PF debate is about clarity and appealing to the average person. Correct grammar matters. I also appreciate when words or terms are pronounced correctly. When I was judging a topic about NATO, there were several teams who pronounced it with the short "a," like "natto." Natto is a traditional Japanese food. It is not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

5) I am a parent judge, and it would be a mistake to assume that I know how to judge progressive debate, kritiks, theory or anything other than the actual topic.

6) You may believe you won the flow. You may believe you cleanly won the debate. But, guess what? If you didn't win my ballot, you lost the debate. Period.

Finally, please be respectful to one another. You can argue aggressively but still be respectful. I will time your speeches, but you should be timing yourselves as well.

Have fun and debate well! :)

"I like nonsense. It wakes up the brain cells." --Dr. Seuss

"It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like, 'What about lunch?'" --Winnie the Pooh

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less bayesian lens. This means my existing knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; rather, it will simply take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those specific elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote on them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games.

Clipping.

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Yoo what's Gucci?! Or whatever it is the kids are saying these days. My name is Asia, I debated LD all four years of high school for The Meadows School so I'm familiar with how this shindig goes down. I've read through a basic aff/neg case but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the topic so don't assume I'm well versed and be sure to explain any complex concepts well.

Note that I've been out of practice as a judge so please, for the love of our lord and savior Nicki Minaj, SLOW DOWN and ease into speed. If I have to remind you more than a few times to slow down or to be clear, I'll drop speaks and stop writing. I want to actually pay attention and understand your arguments so please do yourself the favor and be clear.

I'm a stickler about stealing prep so don't think you're being slick by "forgetting to start your timer". I will be flashing prep and my time is the only time that matters so no funny business and I do count flashing as prep!

Cross ex is your time to shine and probably my favorite part of the round. Use this time wisely and I will without a doubt reward you with extra speaker points. However, DO NOT BE RUDE OR BULLY YOUR OPPONENT! This is a given for the entire round. Don't get me wrong, I love a spicy aggressive cross ex (especially from my ladies) but if you cross the line into being rude I will drop you to the lowest speaks possible. I thoroughly believe this is your time to make your case stand out and to make your opponent sound like a moron, just do it tastefully.

I was more of a K debater back in the day and am well versed on the literature. I tend to prefer K's, case/CPs/Disads, and T and am NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF THEORY. I am not the judge to be running frivolous theory shells in front of!!! I will in fact hate you, and I want you to know you are making me very sad. This does not mean don't run theory in front of me. Good theory is appreciated as I believe there is a time and space for it, but don't be that person running theory just to run theory. Not a fan of performance either.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to answer questions after, but you will not argue with me. If you have a problem with me or my decision, I really don't care. You can complain to your coach and if they come up to talk to me I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell you -- I will not argue with you and my decision is final, so kick rocks. It is not my fault that you did not perform well, so learn and do better next time.

To end this on a positive note -- I love debate and am not as scary as I look (unless it's an early round and I haven't had my coffee). I want you both to enjoy the round, make smart arguments, and kick butt. May the best debater win!

[Update 10/8/2022] I am now occasionally streaming at twitch.tv/thudthudtonk, I will give no additional speaker points for following, and if you put in the doc a proof of follow I will be annoyed, but know that if you follow I will be appreciative in an out-of-debate human context.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 4

LARP: 4

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 4 if you like Ks and LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

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.

I'm a parent judge and have been judging since 2021.

I need to be able to understand you. I will judge your speaking abilities, logic throughout the case, and how much you know your topic. Don't just read off your computer screen. Understand your argument, listen to your opponent, and adapt your case.

I understand that sometimes the aff/neg may have a harder case to make and will not let that or my personal opinions sway who wins.

Be respectful of your opponent(s). While they are speaking you should be listening, taking notes, and/or preparing your arguments. 

I expect you to know the rules for your events. You can time yourself. I will time you, but will not stop you. If you go over by a few seconds that is fine, but more than that may cause you to lose points.

UCLA 26'

Debated for Orange Lutheran for 4 years - qualed twice.

aaronzhng4@gmail.com

General

Be nice. (ad homs r bad)

Speaks start at 28.5 and go up or down from there

Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin

Clipping is an L20 but you need a recording to accuse someone

The doc is for cards - if I can't understand you then I'll miss the argument and I'm not great at flowing so pause between arguments

Death is not good

You can win on any argument if you debate well as long as its not morally abhorrent

If you already won the debate then sit down early/take less prep for better speaks

Policy

Favorite kind of arguments

Impact calc wins rounds

Know your positions

Default judgekick

Winning competition is usually a better idea than going for theory but dta on cps is underutilized esp for stuff like private actor fiat bad

Zero risk isn't a thing

Theory/T

Default competing interps and dtd on T

The 1ar is probably pretty hard - 1ar theory is smart but i slow down and i need to hear warrants for your offense or I won't vote on it

Default reasonability on 1ar theory but can be convinced otherwise

Semantics/pragmatics first is stupid - predictability matters and you probably won't win going all in for one or the other

Smart topic T shells are great!

No RVIs but will vote on it if its dropped and I heard a warrant for it thats not time skew

Kritiks

Debate is a game, fairness is good

Affs should be topical but if not, go for the impact turn + win defense

Not well versed in k lit so explain your argument clearly or I won't vote on it

Affs get to weigh the case, negs get links to the plan

K alts about a "mindset shift" usually don't make much sense and might be cheating

Debate is about arguments not people

Phil

These debates are usually pretty messy and I'm not well versed so make sure you explain it well

Default epistemic modesty, extinction is bad

No one even reads straight up phil in LD but if you do and do it well then these debates are great

Going for a million induction fails spikes in the 2nr probably won't win

Tjfs are bad

Tricks

Tech > truth but If I don't understand the argument then I won't vote on it

Default comparative worlds

More likely to vote for it if you aren't being sketchy - i.e. you know what an apriori is don't pretend you don't