I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

Former policy debater, prefer stock issues, don't like speed or K

Hello,

As a judge, I look for my debaters to be firm but respectful. Use the time to prove why you're correct and why your opponent is not. I expect the round to get heated at times, but respect for your opponent and judge is crucial.

I will keep official time, but participants are welcome to keep time as well. The timer will begin ON YOUR FIRST WORD after I have instructed you to begin.

Feel free to ask me questions at any point and I will answer to the best of my ability. Good Luck!

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

Clarke Dickens

Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:

I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):

Pre-Round

1. Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).

2. Policy v Kritik: No preference

3. Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.

4. I usually do not vote on T.

5. Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.

6. Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.

7. Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

• Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Don't / Pet Peeves

1. Being disrespectful (includes being rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.)

2. Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.

3. Overviews: Keep them short.

Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Kritiks: I love K debates that include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.

I have coached debate for close to a decade, so I judge all styles. My background is in the humanities, and I teach philosophy at the high school and collegiate level. In this paradigm, I will list my preferences in order of importance:

1. Evidence (timely and well-sourced)

2. Logical connections between evidence and arguments

3. Ability to adjust in-round to what is happening and strategically and effectively countering the opposing side

4. Solvency

I rarely award wins on topicality. I am fine with kritiks and spreading, as long as I can see what you are reading. If you don't seem to understand your own argument, you will almost always lose when I am judging you. I assess this in terms of how you explain your argument in cross-ex in your own words and in your correct pronunciation and use of jargon and philosophical terminology.

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

Email - mkobeski@ucfsd.net. Please include me on the email chain.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on tech issues and other situations that may occur at tournaments. Please reciprocate that benevolence by trying to keep the round on time. Prepare ahead time. Recognize that when rounds are delayed that it has a cumulative impact on the entire tournament.

Also, please don't ask me to provide you with supplies such as flow paper or pens. That is not my role as a judge. Bring your own equipment.

Experience - Long time debate judge and coach. This is my second year coaching and judging for Unionville.

Policy/LD - I am familiar with Policy and LD debate.

Public Forum - I have judged Public Forum debate, but I am not as familiar with this format.

General Philosophy - I will try to flow and base my decision on the arguments made by the competitors. I encourage debaters to directly respond to the arguments made by their opponents, and I urge competitors to make arguments that have claims, warrants, and impacts. I prefer that debaters use evidence to support arguments. However, reading evidence alone is not an argument.

This generally means that I will look at the flow to see what arguments were made, and make my decision based on what I have written down on the flow.

Although I am receptive to all arguments, some claims have greater thresholds than others. It is still the debaters' responsibility to refute the arguments. I have voted for alternative frameworks and in round impacts, but mostly because the other team didn't respond well to those claims.

Constructive speeches should be used to construct new arguments, and rebuttals should be used to respond/refute/extend previously made contentions. I am not receptive to new arguments made in the final speech, and need for the debaters to show how their arguments in second speeches have been developed from previously articulated positions. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments. But you can always do impact comparisons.

In order for me to evaluate an argument, I must be able to understand and flow it. Vocal clarity is very important, definition of terms and jargon is also important. Moderate Speed is generally ok IF (IF IF IF) you are speaking clearly. I will not interrupt you to say unclear, and will continue to try to flow. It is your responsibility to recognize that you are unclear. It is ok for a partner to politely indicate that a speaker is unclear.

It's your round, and you can present any arguments you want in any style you want. I will be more effective as a critic if you signpost, label your arguments, and follow the flow. If you want to kick out of the line-by-line, then I will struggle to follow you and will most likely have to intervene to make sense of the arguments. It is ok if you don't want to signpost or tell me where to flow arguments, you will just have to live with my decision as I tend to vote in favor of the team that does the best of helping me organize my flow.

Signposting means to tell me where to flow your arguments. For example "On the counterplan, their first permutation was this..., my argument is this...." The more you do this, the better I will be as a judge.

I would like to be on an email chain - georgeli135022@gmail.com, but if the internet is broken, I'm fine with flash drives as well.

I was a policy debater for like 2 years, but I prefer a clear-cut debate rather than a lot of theory and K's. You can still make those arguments, you're just gonna have to make them clear to me and also your opponent.

TLDR- be respectful to the opposing team, and let's make sure to make debate an enjoyable experience where we can all learn something.

Policy

It's been like 3 years since I actually did policy debate, make sure to extend your technical terminologies for me to more easily understand your arguments. As an old-school (kinda) taught by old-school debaters, I prefer large tangible impacts to small soft ones, but if you make a good argument for that I will still favor it.

Some other stuff:

While arguments y'all make should be supported by evidence and reliable sources, they should also make logical sense. Please don't make me pull my hair out trying to decipher what you just said.

Policy debate is about making real-life policies. I will refer to the real tangible impacts of the plan over arguments like theory or Kritics. If you do use theories and Ks, make them understandable, if you start spouting words I hear from my philosophy class it will most likely fly past me. Especially if you're using Ks, please elaborate on how the alternative is better than the plan.

Public Forum

PF is pretty similar to Policy Debate so I'll probably judge it as one. All my points about the clash and evidence from above still apply, especially on Ks and Theory. There is less time in PF to fully flesh out the intricacies of a Kritic or Theory so it should be even more clear.

Ofcourse, I want you to explain the logic of your arguments clearly and make sure to engage in as much clash as possible. Beyond that, as long as it makes sense it's good enough for me.

General Notes

Debate is not just about dumping evidence on your opponent and then hoping something sticks, please clash with your opponent. Extend your arguments and answer your opponents' arguments. If you don't extend arguments after your opponent drops them I will put much less weight on them in my decision.

I will take logical arguments over some flimsy evidence. Just saying we have evidence doesn't cut it, explain and extend why that's important to the wider debate and the plan.

As a policy debater, I've seen pretty fast speeds before so I can understand them. However, as a judge, I would much rather you make a few clear and concise arguments than try to overwhelm your opponent with 10 different disadvantages and counterplans. I'm also not going to read your document if you spoke incomprehensibly to fill in my flow sheet, I'll just disregard that argument in my decision. I'm not saying speaking fast is bad since there is a lot to get through, I'm just saying don't abuse it.

Of course, the point of debate is to educate and have fun. As someone who follows politics and policies, I want to learn something from the debate. Use common sense and we'll have an enjoyable experience.

Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com)

i debate at NYU currently

Top-Level

For the sake of all things good in life, cringe, and the activity of debate... call me Manny or Emmanuel, not "judge"

Debate is a space where people come to test their intellectual capacities through a discussion about the reading of the 1AC. I don’t care what your methodology is for accessing that discussion, but you should be able to defend it. I love debate and have a lot of fun, so it is more enjoyable for me to see other debaters having fun.

I can't promise to set aside my biases entirely (I try my best, but I don't think anyone can 100% do this). I do promise to evaluate debates as fairly as I can and give you the most valuable feedback. I'm always going to be open to questions at the end of debate, and don't be afraid to disagree with the RFD. I've experienced a fair share of inexperienced judges, and strive to be as far from that as possible. I default to common sense unless you tell me otherwise.

The nuance between, "The plan is not topical" and "The plan is so obviously, wildly untopical" can make or break debates. Don't mistake this for ad homs, but don't forget that debate is about persuasion as much as it is about research, and argumentation—how you articulate your argument makes a difference. I'll clarify here that tech and truth aren't mutually exclusive, but judge instruction on how to evaluate a certain argument is useful. Here, I'll also insert a link to a certain segment of Juju's lecture that embodies how I feel about tech v. truth. A dropped argument is true to the extent that you explain it.

Spreading is good. Speaking slow is good. Debate ultimately relies on communication. I know how hard it might be for you to grapple with the idea of maybe not spreading incomprehensibly through tags and analytics, but it's just that simple. If I can't hear what you said, it won't get on my flow. Just be self-aware about your spreading. You don't automatically get higher speaks because you spread faster.

Plans Texts

Plan texts are cool. I think a lot of policy AFFs have poor evidence and can be beaten with analytics sometimes. I generally dislike the ones that “The USFG should do the resolution in its [insert plan focus]” plan texts because they are a moving target for me. I will gladly fill in for the neg here and probably err on any theory if there isn’t much contextualization coming out the 2AC. I value the quality of evidence (because it’s really hard to find), but I won’t look at you sideways if your warrants are SLIGHTLY inconsistent with your tag unless the opposing team points it out.

2ACs should integrate extensions on the line by line. 2AC overviews are fine, but I won't flow them as a response to any case arg made by the 1NC. Long 2AC overviews are boring.

Case debates are so underrated. Please do it more

CPs

I love weird, specific, techy CPs. Advantage CPs and PIKs are my favorite. A lot of teams are usually bad at explaining why the perm doesn’t solve beyond a random card in the block or saying “Perm links to NB”. Good analysis is rewarded on the perm debate. Case solvency usually needs more time spent as well.

I don't believe in judge kick lmao sry

DAs

Similar to 1AC's, I think a lot of DA's have terrible link ev. I don't think it's the fault of the card cutters, but rather the topic committee for picking topics with terrible neg ground. I also think generics are generics for a reason - you can win on them if you debate them well. I'm willing to vote aff on any part of the DA that neg loses (i.e. if there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w)

Ks

I'm very comfortable with anti-blackness Ks. I'm less comfortable, but still fine with other identity/positionality Ks, DnG, dark Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, and some other pomo Ks, but do not expect me to fill in the lines. In those debates, I will flow cross and value/reward digestible explanations on the line by line.

I'm more attracted to small alternatives/advocacies than big ones. The former is more like "Discourse within this round is good" while the latter is like, "We organize an international communist revolution". I think the bigger ones lose more often to the args that are foundational on the "How do we get there?" questions. With that said, presumption becomes more convincing on the big advocacies than the smaller ones.

Be clear whether or not you're kicking the alt in the 2NR.

I’m not the judge for you if you are not black (especially white) and you want to read anti-blackness. Autoloss 0 speaks. Content > Strategy. It’s the same thing if you read bizcon and cap in the same 1NC. Do not embody perf cons.

K/Performance Affs
I've read several K AFFs the majority of my senior year (and still do in college). Even though I love the K so much, remember that I still value the clash and technical component of debating, so don't just read a 2.5 hr overview and then say "that was the work i did in the overview" in response to line by line. That is not debating. Also, do not come into the debate with the idea that your K just sort of subsumes every conceivable notion of human thought that doesn't directly engage with the body of literature you introduce. There isn't any theory of power that can intricately explain every single other theory of power.

With that said, KvK debates are fun but easily get muddy. Fortunately, there are easy ways for you to get out of the muddiness (specific link contextualization, using the grammars of your opponents, specific quotes, etc.).

I do not appreciate you reading a K Aff as a justification for being rude and disrespectful. A lot of K debaters in general have felt the need to assume this perceived role of K debaters (especially identity K debaters) as just rude and like all French revolution "F the state and F you". No. Your K authors aren't saying to be rude to people, so don't do it. Don't confuse that with being assertive which is excellent.

It should be related to the topic. You cannot just read a K AFF that has nothing to do with the resolution---you will definitely lose on T. I know how tempting it might be given the low prep burden, but even one card or two cards that establish a relationship to the resolution is enough.

I love performance AFFs and respect the debaters who have the courage to do it and make it look so easy. I also don't care if you choose not to read cards; just make it something flowable.

Prefs

On a scale of 1-10, how confident am I to render a ballot on certain debates?

Policy vs. Policy: 8.2

Policy vs. T: 6.3

Policy vs. K: 8

K vs. FW: 7.9

K vs. K: 8.1

K vs. Cap K: 9

K vs. Antiblackness Ks: 9.3

K vs. Pomo Ks: 7.2

Theory

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it (i.e., procedural, reason to reject the team, PIK solves case *these are not mutually exclusive, but it helps in terms of impact framing*)

Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

If you feel like there is an ethics violation, I'd rather you make it as an argument than stop the debate unless you feel the ethics violation is making you seriously uncomfortable or unable to continue the debate. Here, I'll insert that homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, sexism, and any other "ism" that expresses deep prejudice towards any specific group warrants 0 speaks and an auto loss. Ad homs are also weird.

More than 3 condo probably isn't good against common AFFs that were alr on the wiki. Disclosure is good.

T/FW

Fairness is an impact if it's an intrinsic good. Otherwise, it's an internal link to education and clash. Predictability controls everything.

v. K Aff: If the 2NR doesn't have a way to prove why you can access the critical lit/discourse of the 1AC (i.e. TVA, SSD) then aff offense on your model becomes so attractive. PIKS, counter-advocacies, and your regular CP + disad debates are smart if deployed correctly.

v. Policy Aff: If you think I'm slightly on edge about whether or not the plan text is topical, good impact debating should mitigate that. If the plan is "obviously" not topical, then that should be clear to me from the 1NC. A single line as to why I should prefer the interp or C/I is necessary.

I believe non-traditional AFFs can be topical because "affirming" the resolution is entirely up to the terms the debaters set on. That means I have a high bar for voting on T against non-trad AFFs (especially ones that don't impact turn the resolution). That doesn't mean if you read non-trad you shouldn't work hard to win your model of debate, but I will not just sort of default to normative ways of affirming the resolution.

Cross

Cross ex is the most interesting time of the debate. It is where debaters actively interact with each other. I don't flow cross, but I pay close attention to and will write down arguments that are made. I've seen entire K links from cross make it into the 2NR.

If you run high theory and can't answer questions about your thesis sufficiently, you will likely lose.

The nuance between assertive and rude are apparent and you lose speaks for the latter.

Misc

Tech -----x--------------- Truth

K ----------x---------- Policy

AT x-------------------- A2

Turns case x-------------------- O/W

Saitama -x----------------------- Goku

Ins and outs are fine.

Some of my favorite current/past debaters & coaches atm: *subject to change* Will Baker, Darrian Carroll, DB, Eu, Tyler Vergho, Raam Tambe, Azja Butler, Iyana Trotman, Maeve Ella, Ryan Cavanaugh, Beau Larsen, Nae Edwards, Greg Zoda, Joe Leeson-Schatz, Aden Barton, Gabriel Chang-Deutsch, John Sharp, Diego (Jay-Z) Flores, Curtis Ortega, Taj Robinson

Public Forum

I've never done PF, but I've judged quite a bit. It's a nice break from all the policy spreading.

A lot of the policy stuff applies.

I prefer speech docs where everything you read is in one document. Google docs is fine, but don't send me like 8 different docs for the first constructive

Off-time road maps are good

+0.1 speaks if you reference any of the following:

Adventure Time

Steven Universe

Vikram Saigal

Maximillian Layden

Bio

Email for Link Chain: rmercedes@haverford.edu

Hello my name is Ruth Mercedes (she/her), I am a senior at Haverford College double majoring in Spanish and History. I have debated in Parliamentary for over 6 years and have a little bit of experience as a judge from my high school debate days, judged the TOC in 2023, and judged this tournament last year. I recently taught a crash course in debate summer camp and am excited to be back in this world.

Spreading: I don’t like spreading and would prefer debaters who speak slowly and clearly. I am/was trained in a league that doesn’t spread so keep that in mind. If you do choose to spread, be sure to signpost clearly (however I cannot assure you that I will be able to flow your arguments effectively).

PF:

I am new to judging Public Forum, although it is similar to some formats of Parli I have done. If you have me as a judge in PF, please signpost your cases clearly. I am a tabula rasa judge, so assume no prior knowledge. Explain the content of your arguments, your claims, warrants, impacts etc. Essentially assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic nor debate itself.

Kritiks: As I was trained in Parli I am not super familiar with Kritiks. I think they are cool in concept and would love to see how that plays out. That being said, if you decide to run a kritik, know that you will have to weigh out everything very clearly for my benefit. If running a Kritik, explain your links, impacts, and alternatives.

Policy:

I tend to be a non-involved judge so when it comes to cards, I expect debaters to regulate.

Kritiks: see above

General Note: I will drop debaters who are excessively rude, make ad-hominem comments, are racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, etc. I also believe in disclosing results (depending on what the tournament allows), if you do not want to hear results please inform me at the start of the round.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

im kailey. i go by any pronouns so call me anything tbh

please add me to the email chain ramlalkailey0@gmail.com

pref black judges

i like all arguments i dont discriminate

i think to sum up all the specifics just do your best and flesh out your arguments :0

Be respectful and kind during debate. I find using rhetorical strategies such as logos and ethos provides more of a persuasive appeal. In policy debate, I appreciate when there's a proposal argumentation so the audience knows the details and reasoning the proposed solution is a good idea. I prefer quality over quantity in terms of evidence meaning I would rather have a team make a strong case with few points than rushing through numerous points. I prefer if competitors refrain from using profanity in a debate round. :)