General Paradigm

If you have questions about my decision/want feedback or want to complain about what a terrible judge I am

email me: benlbrazelton@gmail.com

(If there are any issues I need to know before the round regarding physical/non-physical accessibility, shoot me an email.)

Experience

Competed for Madison West High School. Public Forum, Extemp, and limited Congress experience in High School. I coach a few schools privately now, and teach at camps.

Personal Info

I study Education with an emphasis on critical race/queer theories. I'm further left than liberal, so I especially respond to well-constructed Critical Race, Gender or Queer Theory arguments. Equity is the name of the game, but I'll accept any criteria that is well-warranted.

As a Judge, I am...

- Pretty Flow. I will be flowing on excel or paper or whatever else.

- A little lay. Teams that speak clearly and persuasively have an innate advantage over those that don't.

- Very lazy. Do the work for me, because I hate the mental gymnastics for teams that don't weigh, signpost, etc.

- Kind of Tabula Rasa. I'll drop my individual opinions, and technical knowledge, etc. and be as close to a blank slate as I feel comfortable being. That said, I'm not going to pretend like people aren't incorrect or lying. Also, see the next section for when I stop being tabs.

What you MUST DO when I am judge:

- If you choose to make arguments that concern sexual assault, racialized/gendered violence, stuff like that, and either a. do not offer some sort of warning ahead of time or b. do it without the delicacy it deserves, I will almost categorically drop the argument. These arguments are almost always personal to someone (whether they be in the room or at the tournament), so that needs to be respected.

- Don't be blatantly (or subtly) racist, sexist, classist, etc. It's obvious to put in a paradigm, not so obvious in round. I will call you out, and (based on the magnitude of what you said/did) drop you. Tabs come off.

- Don't be a jerk. Gendered and racialized dynamics are everywhere, and if I get a whiff of exploitation therein, tabs are off.

What you CAN do:

I'm a big fan of including theory and Kritikal debate-- if we are talking about debate, any kinds of arguments (no matter how 'accessible' they may be) should be fair game. If you want to run K's or theory, whatever, that's fine by me, so long as you give me clear reasons to vote for them.

What I look for in argumentation:

- Be smart. This seems obvious, but you aren't going to win the round by obfuscating arguments, or trying to convince me that basic facts aren't true. This is one of the most cliche things to put in a paradigm, but smart analytics beat a lot of cards. Having an appreciation for what the world is like when the debate round is over helps everything. Teams that can find contradictions in opponents' cases can cross out contentions without every dropping a carded response.

- Claims, Warrants, and Impacts. Please extend the later two into summary, and absolutely in Final Focus. If it isn't in both I won't vote for them. Please refrain from extending through ink, or resurrecting dead arguments.

- WEIGHING. Please weigh for me, because I get really frustrated having to weigh myself. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the room.

- Teams that tell a consistent story will do much better than teams that stretch themselves out. Paint me a picture of what the world will look like, aff or neg, and stick to that. Framework and overviews help.

What I look for in Cross-X:

- I don't flow CX, but I will sit patiently and wait for it to end.

- If you get any strong concessions, they should be in your speeches too. If they aren't, they didn't happen.

- Don't be a jerk. I don't just consider it rude, I think the predatory, aggressive debater really exploits a lot to get there. Assertion should not trespass into aggression, and if it does, I will wreak havoc on your speaker points.

Speaking Points:

Points are evaluated based on the tournament (TOC will be tougher to get 30s than a local).

- 30s = you are a flawless debater. J. Scott Wunn himself would fall to his knees and praise you.

- 29.5s = you are a very, very good debater. J. Scott Wunn would likely shake your hand after the round.

- 29s = Very good debater. Maybe you make a few mistakes, but overall gave a very high-quality performance. J. Scott Wunn would likely call you "buddy."

- 28s = Exactly average. J. Scott Wunn probably would not remember you.

- 27s = Quite a bit of room for improvement. J. Scott Wunn would be concerned.

- 26s = you either have a lot to work on, or you messed up big.

26> = Uh oh. You must've said something very offensive.

Evidence Ethics

It is the responsibility of the other team to call for evidence, unless I absolutely know it to be miscut, or there is so little weighing in the round that I need to evaluate the strength of link/impact myself.

If someone miscut/misinterpreted evidence, call for it and let me know in your speeches. If you are accused of miscutting, offer something more substantive than "no it's not"-- either apologize and drop it from the round, or defend your interpretation.

My vengeful judging fury:

- I'm a very spiteful judge, so if you are acting like jerks, or making stupid arguments, I will earnestly want to drop you. I've picked up teams very begrudgingly, and that is typically reflected in speaker points. Consider yourselves warned.

"Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime."

- My Coach in High School

Policy Paradigm

K's and Performance

If they run T and don't engage with the warrants, they've conceded them. Please extend warrants and don't just make it a Framework debate.

I'm a big fan of K's if they have something important to say. That said, if y'all just wanna win spreading Baudrillard and try and trick people out, I'm less convinced. I see K's as a kind of necessary resistance to the oppressive structures of debate––if you're going to reject the resolution, make sure it's for a good reason and not just to be tricky.

I'm a big fan of intellectual clarity in your K's, so don't run sources that don't agree with each other (i.e. Afropessimism and Marxism shouldn't be in the same speech without clarifying those ideological differences).

Spreading

After however many years of debate, I'm pretty good at flwoing. That said, I shouldn't have to read the round to understand it. If you are speaking in a way that I don't understand and can't follow the round, I won't flow. That means heavy tech debaters who do double-breaths will probably be disappointed. Speak clearly––if your card is read so fast you don't care if I catch it, it's probably not valuable enough to be in your speech.

Policy-making

I'm far more convinced by a strong link (high probability/timeframe) than a big impact (magnitude and scope). I tend to weigh based on how real the arguments sound and if it sounds like you're making a stretch I'm less interested. That is to say, I'm far more likely to vote for a well-warranted regional impact than global nuclear extinction. I'll almost never vote for global nuclear extinction if I'm presented with a clear alternative impact.

Please feel free to run evidence indicts in justifying the strength of the link––if somebody is justifying nuclear war impacts with a Krauthammer card, just indict.

Public Forum Paradigm

See general paradigm

As of Harvard 2018: no off-time roadmaps; evidence indicts should be a part of strategy.

Background Info

I debated for 4 years for Downtown Magnets High School (LAMDL) and I am currently a sophomore JV debater at the University of Southern California.

Misc. Debate Information

Please include me in the email chain using: victor.briseno21@gmail.com

Write my ballot for me

I do not take prep time for flashing or emailing, but please make it quick. Please inform me if you're having technical difficulties.

Overviews are not necessary, but if you want to point out an important concession or something of the sort by all means go ahead, but please make sure that you point this out again real quick on the line by line. Overviews do make my job easier as they high light the arguments that you want me to focus on. Just assume judge are lazy when it comes to making decisions, WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME DURING YOUR LAST REBUTTAL. Tell me exactly why I vote for your side, concessions and impacts that win you the debate etc.

Framing is very important, especially if the framing is reasonable. Telling me how I should evaluate the round in terms of your impacts and other framing issues is key!

I will try my best to give constructive criticism at the end of the debate, I will disclose my decision, but I will not disclose speaker points.

I'm okay with tag-team during cross x but please make sure that cross x is even among partners because it will definitely impact speaker points if one partner does all the talking when it is not their turn.

I think that I'm a fairly middle of the road type of judge. Will vote on policy and critical impacts.

Debate

Case

Case is very important so make sure that case is always extended and not dropped by the end of the debate. Teams sometimes focus so much on off cases that they forget to use their case offensively. Furthermore, the negative needs address the arguments made on case to some extent. I prefer policy affirmatives that have both terminal and structural impacts because it provides for a strategic diversity of arguments.

DAs

DAs need to do one or two of these. Exponentially more impactful in the debate if you have a CP that resolves the DA AND is mutually exclusive with the affirmative:

1) Have a strong link and have an impact that outweighs the affirmative

2) Serve as a net benefit for a CP

CPs

CPs are cool but please make sure that it has a net benefit so that it can actually be competitive with the affirmative's plan. I'm okay with any type of CP, but I may be more lenient towards the affirmative if the CP is just a consult CP or an agent CP that has no specific, clear application to the affirmative's plan.

Ks

The link and impact debate are the most important for me when it comes to the K debate. Specific links are preferred, especially impactful if you can make a link in the context of what is actually happening in a specific debate. However, the alternative should still be present throughout the debate and explained. If you're going for K solves case arguments, it's better for the alternative to advocate a specific action.

Framework/T

I grouped these two arguments because my comments for these are generally the same. These debates should always be specific to the round. They should have a substantial impact that outweighs what is going on in the round and the aff. Furthermore, these arguments should always be telling me how I should view the round and debate as a whole. An important thing to note is that I will see fairness as its own impact, but I think education is probably a better impact if you're reading other off cases. As someone who doesn't automatically reject K Affs, I hold the negative to a higher standard when it comes to proving these arguments against a policy aff. I rather not judge a procedural debate against a policy aff, but will vote when there are a lot of concessions.

Speaker Points

Just don't be mean or overly-sassy you will most likely not get something lower than a 27.5. However, being assertive while not being a jerk will probably get you good speaks. Cross examination is taken into consideration for speaker points, both based on how you answer questions and the questions you ask. Nicely done impact turns, warrant more speaker points.

Hello! My email is mosieburkebdl@gmail.com - Please add me to the chain!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, in the Boston Debate League for Boston Latin Academy, attending national circuit tournaments for four of those six years. I graduated from Haverford College in 2021 with a degree in Philosophy and a minor in Statistics, and wrote a thesis offering Deleuzian (and related) readings of data visualizations. I received a Master's in Accounting/MBA from Northeastern University in 2022 (despite loving the Cap K).

I began coaching the Boston Debate League's Travel Team, which is composed of teams from multiple schools in the Boston area, in Fall 2022. I coached for Boston Collegiate Charter School during the 2021-2022 season.

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will know your K's lit base. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you in my RFD

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than 15 new 1nr cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay. Read the important warrants in your cards.

-I'm not the judge for your condo 2AR, though i'm sure it's great, no really

-This paradigm has not been adapted for virtual debate, but I will gladly answer any questions about how this applies to virtual debate

***********************************************

As of the 2024 Urban Debate National Championship, I have judged 8 tournaments on the fiscal redistribution topic including outrounds on the national circuit. I actively coach and write arguments of all styles on the fiscal redistribution topic.

***********************************************

Full paradigm:

***I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping and misrepresentation of evidence, in the absence of guidance from tournament admin***

Style:

Speed is fine. Card-speed and non-card-speed should be different. If you blast through 8 arguments in 15 seconds, I won't get them all, it won't be my fault, and I don’t want to get post-rounded because I didn’t catch that they dropped the 6th of 8 2AC permutations. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores at their first varsity tournament. This doesn't mean you should go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

K (and K affs):

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. Don't aim to win arguments by virtue of your opponents not having the resources to engage them. If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters, and that's an impact scenario I am happy to vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology - so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important to relevant perm/framework/T/etc debates.

T:

I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. Defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates. 90% of interpretation evidence sucks enough to give the aff the edge on reasonability.

RVI arguments on these flows won't win you any rounds.

Theory:

If it's a time suck and it works, nice job.

I am rarely a judge where the 2AR should go for theory, and I’m a particularly hard sell on conditionality bad.

I think the neg gets to run multiple conditional advocacies with the exception of abusive cross-application of offense between contradictory positions.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.

FW vs K Affs:

Run it well. You should have good reasons why your interpretation matters. Fairness is an impact.

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't care about accessibility absent a ballot, please :)

DAs:

Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"We win on magnitude so vote Aff" is not impact calc, nor is it an argument.

CPs:

I was not a counterplan debater and I’m probably a little behind the times on whatever tricky counterplan strategies have made their way into the meta, so give me the more detailed versions of why those arguments solve. Give me warranted sufficiency framing starting in the Block, please.

The likelihood of a PIC 2NR winning is proportional to the scale of the link to the net benefit.

Please slow down on the warrants and impact debate for counterplan theory debates.

Alt cause arguments on case > re-cutting aff solvency evidence to make a PIC to solve alt causes

Case:

Yes please. I don’t need lengthy overviews or underviews. Strive to put more on the case debate against K affs than state good.

For email chains: amoschen96@gmail.com

Debate Related Experience/short bio:

Debated 2011-15 Policy debate @ Parkway West High School MO

Debated 2015-19 NPDA Parliamentary debate @ University of Missouri-Columbia

Asst. coach 2019-21 for Parkway West High School, mostly specializing in policy and LD

Pronouns: he/him

------

TL;DR Generally, I view debate as a game being played between two competing teams of debaters. The purpose of the game is to win through deploying arguments and proving that one's arguments are better than the competing claims put forth in the round. What form/structure that takes is fundamentally up to the debaters.

I've judged/debated pretty much every style/argument set for policy so as long as you're not being abusive, I'd prefer if you debate using the method/format you're most comfortable with and execute it well rather than risk sacrificing your own speaking efficacy by contorting your style to fit what you think I'm most receptive to.

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

Policy Notes:

***Overall I evaluate on an offense/defense basis. To win my ballot, you need to prove your side has stable offense, and that it outweighs any offense presented by the other side. Most of the time this is accomplished by proving the world created by one team is better than the one created by the other. How you garner offense can be varied--it could be done through policy impacts on the flow, impacts from theory arguments, in-round impacts, impacts affecting the debate space, etc. If you want me to evaluate on a different paradigm (stock issues, facts, etc.) just tell me, and I'll do it if you present a compelling enough case. I'm pretty generous with speaker points as long as you seem to be making a good faith effort to engage in the round; I generally will only give low scores for hostility to the other competitors/judges and microaggressions/bigoted behavior.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments:

Performance/Critical Affs: Philosophically, I feel the debate space should be open to as many people as possible and should be accessible to all folks from all different backgrounds and experience. Same goes for debate arguments/style--I debated a whole range of styles in high school/college, and I'm always going to err on the side of greater inclusivity. I feel affs critiquing the resolution/plan text-less affs drive innovation, so I'll listen to those too. I'm open to theory/critical arguments attacking the methodology of the advocacy; I'm less open to the "you're not the rez ergo you're bad" args, I'll still try to evaluate them, but don't expect my ballot just because you read a generic T-USFG or T-Resolved block.

Kritiks: Overall, I really enjoy judging critical debates, but only if they actually make an effort to create a link to *this* particular aff in *this* particular round rather than just throwing a generic cap/security/militarism K as part of a strat/time suck. If the K is obviously generic to the aff, I'm much more likely to give leeway to the aff's no link/perm arguments. Case specific links are obviously my preference, but links based on representations/rhetoric are fine if explained fully. I'll even evaluate "links of omission" or "you didn't talk about this ergo you link," arguments as long as it's explained fully how they operate specifically in the context of *this* aff in *this* round. I feel most K debates are resolved in the alt/alt solvency vs perm debate so I never really take K impacts into account when evaluating them. The exception is pre-fiat impacts--if a pre-fiat impact comes out, I'll always evaluate it before plan-related/post fiat arguments unless I'm given a substantial reason to discount it. Same applies for Role of the Ballot arguments. Relative to other judges, I weigh framework and offense generated from framework (for aff and neg) more heavily, so make sure you comprehensively cover it.

In terms of critical lit familiarity I mostly ran cap and race-related arguments, so I'm most familiar with that, as well as political theory-based K's/authors like Agamben/Foucault, anything to do with securitization etc. Somewhat familiar with gender/queerness based args (but not as much as I'd like) and colonialism-based K's. Don't really know a lot about the high theory crowd like Bataille/Baudrillard/Lacan/Deleuze/Heidegger (do people even read Heidegger anymore??)

SPEED/SPREADING: Speaking completely personally, my opinion on speed in debate is that it's a good thing when done right, and harmful when conducted improperly. Being able to deploy massive amounts of arguments in a round incentivizes conducting more research, rewards faster thinking and decision making, and requires more memory retention. In addition, having a larger amount of developed arguments on the flow adds an entirely different layer of strategy to the round in terms of which arguments you dedicate time to. However, spreading historically in debate has often been used as a tool of exclusion (i.e., go super fast because we know the other team can't keep up and will drop args). Plus the argument can be made that it makes rounds inaccessible to people with auditory/learning disorders. Functionally, that means speed if you want, but only if the other judges/competitors in the round are comfortable with it.

Especially considering the technical limitations of the online format, I think a good rule of thumb is to take whatever your typical max speed is and decrease it by 20% to account for faulty audio equipment, internet lag and other potential technical issues.

Theory: I'm open to most theory arguments (e.g., this argument is bad bc x reason) with the exception of specificity-based args like A-spec, e-spec, f-spec, etc. Generally, I need instances of in round abuse to vote on theory alone.

Topicality: I really appreciate well-thought out T-debates. Most high schoolers doing this activity have the goal of eventually being lawyers/legislators and in those fields, the technical definitions of individual words and how they're used matters a lot. Thus, I'm totally fine getting down into the weeds of whether this aff is fitting this interp of the rez based on the definition of this word and etc. However, I need detailed standards and voters to vote on T alone. RVIs are a silly argument and I don't listen to them.

CPs: I'm open to CPs, I'm open to multiple CPs, I'm open to conditional CPs, and I'll take multiple perms as well. All things considered I default to multiple worlds good, but I'll listen to theory arguments against. Same goes for theory arguments against multiple/conditional CPs, PICs, process/agent/consult CPs, and theory arguments against multiple perms. Once again, most of the time I need in round abuse to vote on theory alone. I think advantage CP+DA+impact turn is a powerful strategy that gets underutilized by high schoolers.

DAs: I hate generic DAs. If you're able to articulate a specific link and internal link chain that's specific to the aff case, I'm more open to it, but if it's just a general "doing the rez causes this bad impact" link, I'll give way more leeway to the aff in terms of link defense. Go for as large or small of an impact as you want--as long as you establish a compelling internal link chain, I'll evaluate it in the general offense/defense clash. Most DAs are weakest on the internal link level, so if the aff defends against/turns it enough, I'll vote aff on the DA even if there isn't much terminal impact defense. I don't care about uniqueness that much unless it's an argument like "this scenario is literally already happening, thus no effect on round." Comparative risk analysis is very important to me, so make sure you're consistently comparing/contrasting your DA scenario to the story the aff is telling and vice versa.

----

Put me on the chain with this email: chen.kent@husky.neu.edu

Did policy for 4 years in hs

I don't care if you run kritik or policy as an aff just make policy interesting if you are. I vote on the flow, Don't just read a card and don't explain why you win on an argument. Make sure you know what you're saying. Please clash and explain, it makes it easier for me to vote. Do the work for me on the flow.

I can't stress this enough, please explain why you win an argument and why you should win. It gives you so many advantages to just tell me what to do on the flow rather than assume that I'll know what your intent is.

Sign-post, makes it easier to flow.

Roadmap, makes it easier to flow.

I'm okay with whatever speed you read at, just make sure I can understand what you're saying.

Generally I give 28's. Please don't make me give anything below.

Generally you should pref me low if you a policy aff, if you do run policy make it interesting. I don't like the use of nuclear war as an impact for extinction, something like climate change as an impact is better.

I am a student at New England School of Law Boston. I graduated from UMass Amherst with a degree in political science. I debated for 3 years at New Mission High School out of Boston. In a round, I look for confidence. I'm cool with any type of argument. I tend to vote on the flow. Please make sure your explanations are clear. Give me an impact calc!!

I want you to tell me why I should vote on certain arguments. Again, any type of argument is fine with me. Topicality, kritiks, Da's, CP's, and theory are all fine with me and I understand them when ran. Speaking wise, if you spread, make sure you at least go over your tag-lines slowly so that I can mark that down on the flow. Also, please stand during speeches and cross-ex. That's all. Let's all have a good time. Any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

For email chains: aus.essex@gmail.com

I'm not going to read your cases/evidence unless there are audio issues online or there's a dispute about evidence or maybe cutting. So still send them if you'd like, but it's your job to make sure everything gets said within your allotted time and that when arguments are extended in the round they're fully articulated.

Background:

I did Lincoln Douglas at Burleson High School (2007-2011). I have judged LD around North Texas at various national circuit tournaments, but seem to wind up at UIL tournaments more than anything. More recently I have been introduced to Policy debate via the Boston Debate League.

Policy Debate:

As mentioned, Policy is not the format I've spent the largest amount of my time judging. In lieu of many years of knowledge and familiarity with Policy, I find myself very reliant on my flow and seeing ink on the flow (organized and developed responses to your opponent in a line-by-line or sensible order).

I will ultimately vote on just about anything in a round, but that argument needs a paper trail. Extensions, full development, claim, warrant, impact, etc. Blippy underdeveloped arguments make it extremely difficult for me to evaluate a round.

I'm fine with theory, speed, and generally more progressive elements of debate. But, that may stem more from the enjoyment of experiencing novel argumentation and my own nostalgia rather than an ability to properly evaluate those things in round. If you're spreading too quickly or mumbling I'll yell clear a couple of times to let you know I'm not following. If the round is occurring online I generally think you should speak slightly slower given skips in audio etc.

Crystallization or voters are extremely helpful as a judge. Tell me where you're winning the round on the flow and why it matters.

Etiquette:

I often judge students who are very new to debate or quite young. I do not enjoy rounds that feel overly combative or snippy. Personal attacks are not cool, and CX is not a time to try and control the opposing teams personal autonomy by being overly aggressive. Do not discourage your opponent from enjoying the activity because of your etiquette. You don't win by acting more aggressive.

I'm pretty laid back. I don't care where you sit, I don't care if you stand, what you wear, etc. I'm here for the verbal content of the round. Before the round tell me if you need help with something, time signals, whatever!

*****TL;DR******

I did LD in HS and judged a while, I've judged a few Policy tournaments recently. I flow. I like progressive debate because it's entertaining, but you might have to handhold me through it. Be nice, aggressive ≠ winning. Give me voters make my job easy.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

I usually take on the longer side to decide debates (~10 minutes average) even if it's not close sorry!!!!

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to. Any defaults I have can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made regarding the matter.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is probably one of my favorite arguments to hear and I will especially enjoy if you read Van Inwagen!

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

Given my background, I probably care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot (but it will, of course, factor into speaks). Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share evidence/cases before your speeches with me (and probably each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution (NOT eevee)
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Gamepigeon Word Hunt/Anagrams or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

Debated at: Brighton, Excel (Boston Debate League)

Competed at NAUDL and NFL 

As a judge I think debate is an activity where you can defend or advocate for something that your confident and passionate about. I try to walk in the debate round with no predispositions so don't worry about having to change what you talk about and how you do because of me. But I also realize debate is a subjective activity.

Speed: For the most part I can understand people when they go fast the problem usually is with clarity. If you are not cleat I will yell cleat 3 times after that I will only flow what I can hear.

The most important thing for me is that you have clash in the debate round. Saying things like "they dropped our smith evidence" isn't an argumen yout must have a claim and a warrant.

 

I competed in LD for 3 years on the TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits at the The Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas and graduated in 2015.

I’m comfortable/familiar with whatever style of debate you prefer.

Short version: Read well developed, not offensive, resolutionally grounded arguments and weigh your offense/provide me a clear ballot story, and I will vote for you. I’m open to most arguments; given you explain to me how they operate in the round.

Speed is fine, but I’ve never been awesome at flowing so don’t start out at top speed. On a scale from 1-10, 1 being the slowest and 10 the fastest, I’d rate myself a 6…I’d appreciate some time to adjust to your speaking style before you speed up. Please slow down for important parts of your case---spikes, plans, counterplans, interps (any advocacy texts really) as well as author names/tags.
Theory/topicality: I default to reasonability and drop the argument, and am very inclined to give aff RVIs, but if you win reasons why I should believe otherwise, that’s fine too. You probably have to be topical. I do not like paragraph theory. I think theory has its place in debate and if you read a well-warranted, creative theory shell when there is real abuse happening in round, I will gladly evaluate it. Theory as a strategic layer in the debate is a legitimate choice and you should not be discouraged from utilizing it. At the end of the round, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If neither debater is weighing offense under their interp you can bet that I’m going to intervene and that intervention will be going to SUBSTANCE instead. I WILL NOT ARBITRARILY ADJUDICATE THE THEORY DEBATE---if you want me to buy your interp COMPARATIVE WEIGHING IS KEY.
Policy Arguments: I believe these are the debates I am best at evaluating. That being said, ---do what you feel most comfortable/best doing and I will reward you for that. Plans, CPs, disads are all great given they have all of their necessary parts. WEIGHING EVIDENCE/IMPACTS IS SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DEBATES.
Critical Arguments: I think critical arguments/debates can be really fun to judge given you know what you’re talking about and I know what you’re talking about. I haven’t read much of the common critical literature, but am perfectly willing to vote on anything you read as long as you take the time to clearly explain your argument. I will not vote on Ks that are missing necessary components (framework, alternatives, etc). Don’t be shifty about whether your offense functions pre or post fiat. If your opponent can’t discern how the K functions, chances are I can’t either. I don’t have any predispositions to certain types of Ks and open to any argument as long as you have a specific link to the aff. I don’t like generic Ks or Ks of the resolution, but will vote on any argument that is won in the round.
Speaker Points: My main concern is courtesy and respect to your opponent, judge, and the debate space. After that, I will reward strategic choices made in round, WEIGHING, and humor/perceptual dominance. Literally any weighing will probably jump you up. Your speaks will be negatively affected if you create a hostile space for me or other debaters, but especially for less-experienced or clearly new debaters.
Other stuff/tricks: I’m not the most familiar with “tricks” in debate, whether that’s in the forms of spikes, skep, permissibility, presumption, etc. If you choose to go this route, don’t expect me to vote for you because “they dropped spike number 5 under subpoint a so you vote aff.” Arguments consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you give me those three things, you shouldn’t have any problems.

Most importantly, be kind and have fun! Debate should be a fun activity. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at ninakalluri1@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

hey, you found my paradigm. good job.

For my debate it is fun and that the students have fun is the most important thing, so I think there are several ways to make the debate fun as a judge I don't like when students only read the evidence without giving me an explanation I want them to give me real-life examples and opinions I don't care how strong your evidence is, you have to explain. you have to show a level of knowledge. You should make me think you can win.

The team that wins the rounds of questions also has a better chance of winning

Hi! I'm Camille and I'm a 3rd year coach at the Henderson in the Boston Debate League. Add me to the email chains - cportermcavoy@bostonpublicschools.org. I graduated from UCLA with a degree in political science and communications.

I debated in high school for four years as a varsity parliamentary debater (class of 2016), so I'm relatively familiar with all types of arguments (Ks (including K affs), theory, T, etc). I am happy to evaluate anything read in the round. I believe in judging debate tabula rasa, aka blank slate. If aff tells me the sky is green and neg does not contest it, then the sky is green for the purposes of the debate round. But also please don't blatantly lie or misrepresent your evidence. I won't vote against you solely on this but your speaker points will reflect this. This also does not apply for arguments that are causing obvious harm in the round, like if someone says something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

To me, the best debate rounds have a lot of clash. Don't just throw cards at me - explain to me what the card means, how it negates what the other team is reading, and actually weigh those things for me in the round. Impact calculus goes a long way for me in rebuttals. Use your rebuttal speeches to truly compare arguments and tell me why you have won the round. Don't leave anything for me to evaluate on my own. Above all else, do your best, be respectful, and have fun!

Spreading - I don't mind it, but make it clear. If you are trying to spread unnecessarily, your speaker points will reflect it. Just tell me where you want me to put things on the flow and make your taglines super clear. Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before the round!

Español

Fui debatiente de la escuela secundaria por 3 años, y ahora soy parte de la comunidad de exalumnos de la Liga de Debate de Boston. Desde mi graduación de la escuela secundaria, comencé a ayudar como juez de la Liga de Debate de Boston durante las competencias, especialmente para la división en español. En la actualidad soy entrenadora de debate en español y trabajo como para-profesional para las escuelas públicas de Boston.

Puntos clave:

Estilo: Entiendo que como debatientes, podemos desarrollar diferentes estilos de debate. Como ex-debatiente soy considerada en ello y acepto diferentes estilos que pueden ser brindados, siempre y cuando los estilos utilizados sean bien ejecutado.

Velocidad: la velocidad utilizada durante una ronda de debate debe ayudar a que sus argumentos sean claro y comprensibles. También debe ayudarte a ser más persuasivo a la hora de presentar tus argumentos.

Actuación: cuando se trata de la actuación de los debatientes, siempre que sea profesional y muestren respecto, será bien aceptado.

Nota sobre la tecnología: Entiendo que debido a este nuevo formato de debate. Es posible que experimentemos algunas dificultades técnicas. En caso de que ocurra alguna dificultad técnica, yo sería muy flexible con el tiempo de cada equipo y con el tiempo de las rondas de debate.

Intercambio de pruebas: si un equipo aporta pruebas adicionales, espero que sea compartida con el otro equipo y el juez.

No tolero palabras/acciones racistas, sexistas, etc. durante la ronda de debate. En caso de que suceda, descartaré la ronda de debate de inmediato. Especialmente, si se hacen de manera intencional.

English

I was a high school debate for three years, and now I become part of the Boston Debate League alum community. Since my high school graduation, I started assisting as a Judge for the Boston Debate League during competitions, especially for the Spanish division. Now, I work as a debate coach in the Spanish division and as a paraprofessional for Boston Public School.

Key points:

Style: I understand that, as debaters, we may develop different debate styles. I'm very open to accepting different debate styles during a debate round as long as the style is well-implemented.

Speed:Your speed should make your argument clear and understandable. It should also help you to be more persuasive when it comes to presenting your arguments.

Performance:When it comes to debaters' performance, As long as the debater is professional and respectful, it will be well accepted.

Note About Technology: I understand that because of this new debating format. We may experience some technical difficulties. I am flexible with the time if some technical difficulty happens.

Evidence Sharing:If one team brings additional evidence, I expect it to be shared with the other team and the judge.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, etc. words/actions during the debate round. If it happens, I will dismiss the debate round immediately, especially if it was intentional.

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

The most important things to know about my judging style and experience are as follows: - I'm in my third of year coaching in the Boston Debate League, so I'm most familiar with their cases on this topic (UBI, Federal Jobs Guarantee) and not as familiar with cases outside the BDL packet on this topic. - The most important arguments to me are the arguments that carry through to the end of the debate round - if something comes up in Constructives or CX, it needs to show up in the rebuttals for me to consider it in my decision. - I haven't done much varsity judging before in my three years of coaching. - I am most familiar with the structure of policy arguments.

My experience is in participating in and coaching high school extemp and public forum debate

I strongly prefer slower, articulate speaking to spreading

I strongly prefer clear signposting of evidence and major points

I strongly prefer that competitors stand during speeches and crossfire

Lex 24:
Hello, my name is Anna (she/hers). This is my first time judging at Lex and I've been judging policy debate on and off for the past 5 years at the Boston Debate League.

Email: anna.zhao.az399@yale.edu, please add me to the chain.

I was a pretty straightforward policy debater during my time and ran Ks occasionally depending on my partners. I am much more familiar with policy than Ks. As the neg-facing Ks, I usually went for FW/T. I was the 1A/2N if that is of any importance to you. I go into all the rounds “tabula rasa”. Please outline your voters and the role of the judge as early in the round as possible.

For speaker points please slow down on the tag and author. Be yourself and be cordial to your opponents.

Important note for in-person tournaments only: I am disabled and use a trained service dog. If you’re in a room with me, there will be a dog quietly laying under my chair. The dog will not touch you, get close to you, or acknowledge your existence at all.

That being said, IF YOU HAVE A FEAR OF DOGS SO BAD YOU CANNOT BE IN A ROOM WITH ONE, please tell someone so they can assign you a different judge.

——

Current Affiliation: Boston Debate League

Background: Debated PF in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging policy and PF in Boston for seven more.

Rounds judged this year: n/a

_____

Background:

- I'm a pretty standard tab judge. I'm happy to vote on any sort of issue as long as as there is decent weighing and impact analysis explaining to me why I should vote for it.

- That being said, I will drop arguments that are clearly offensive (racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.)

- It is important to me that you extend your arguments if you want me to vote on them: I very strongly tend towards the flow and voting on positions that have been present throughout the debate.

- Jargon and spreading are totally fine with me. I do flow much better if you help me out with good organization - signposting and roadmaps are always fantastic. 

- I strongly prefer being presented with a framework: I strongly dislike brining my own values into a debate. It makes the round very hard to adjudicate.

____

Subjective preferences:

(I try not to vote on these, but I do want to acknowledge my personal biases!)

- The kind of round I like listening to best sticks very closely to the topic: stock issues, disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, etc.

- I'm more inclined to vote on a Kritik if you relate them to what is currently happening in the room (or at least explain why they're relevant)

- I can and will vote on theory if the need arises, I just personally find it tedious and I won't enjoy the round as much.

____

Stylistic notes and speaker points:

- I prefer you use variation in your tone in order to highlight important issues. This will have a positive effect on your speaks.

- Overly hostile behavior is unpleasant. Talking over each other in cross-ex, raising your voice in an attempt to threaten or silence, or making rude comments about your opponents themselves rather than their arguments will lower your speaks the more you do them.

- While jargon and spreading is good ***with me***, I do ask that you clear it with everyone in the room first and offer accommodations if anyone needs them.