I am the Program Director for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. I debated for 4 years at Oakland Technical School in Oakland, CA and I am a graduate of UC Berkeley. I ran both policy and K's throughout my debate career.

That being said I am pretty much open to any arguments (even the really dumb ones). If you can run it well, I'll vote on it. Make sure that there is clash, impact calc, and clear voters in your round.

I don't want to do the work for you. At the end of the round if I am still confused about what you were saying you will most likely lose. Just make sure that your arguments are clear and have a place within the round.

Also, I would like to be on email chain - sbardell@baudl.org

I am an experienced coach and judge of about 10 years but have no experience actually debating myself. As a person who comes to debate as an educator first, I am predisposed to argumentation that open spaces for youth to explore real ideas and their relationships to them. This translates into a few concrete implications for preferences:

1. I don't like spreading, which is not to say I can't deal with moderately fast talking, but the idea of fitting in as many arguments as possible to get your opponent to drop something, to me, is not the point of debate.

2. I don't like debates about the definitions of words in a resolution, so if you are going to run topicality on the neg, it better be good. As long as the aff does a minimally competent job answering T, I'm not voting for it. In the age of electronic disclosure and Open Ev, I'm not into the sob stories about fairness and being unable to prep. However, theory debates about why resolutions and being topical are good/not good for debate I think are a lot more worthwhile.

3. I like kritiks and critical affs, but make sure you understand what you are talking about and didn't just download a file that you think has a cool title. Make it your own if you are going to run it, otherwise we end up with bad debates where two sides don't understand each other.

4. I think that it is important that we bring our whole selves into the debate space and value argumentation that actually connects to debater's identities and experiences. Along with that, I will hold everyone to a high standard of mutual respect for each other's backgrounds and perspectives.

All that being said, I'm open to any style and will listen to any argument. Even though I may not like certain types of arguments, I will vote based on what I hear in the round. I expect debaters to do the work for me of sorting through the flow and telling me why they won. Unless something is blatantly sexist/racist/homophobic/violent, I'm not voting against it unless I'm told to vote against it. Good impact calculus goes a really long way for me!

I am the type of judge that will be giving feedback based on what I was taught about Public Speaking, I also value the historical points of view of the topic. For example, I am a History major and Spanish Teacher and will be looking for facts and dates and also examples of historical past history. I also will be looking for specific information that will be adheareing to the actual topic this year of Artificial Intelligence. The aff I will be looking for a continuance of the plan and also will be looking for specific details and dates and facts to past history. The Neg I will be looking for the best counter argument possible with leads into K's and also different topics to further enhance their argument against the plan. I want to see Artificial Intelligence in the forefront of where the world is going and also using past history to further establish how and why Artificial Intelligence can be a detriment to the plan.

I also believe that the inflection and the voice of the team and the Cross x questions I will also take into consideration in my judgement of the rounds that I will be judging for. I am excited to be judging on a National Debate scale and this will be very meaningful for me to bring back to my school and learn how to judge rounds as a judge for BAUDL as well.

Lastly, I would prefer to be able to judge the continuation of the argument rather than the speed of the debate. I feel that if I can understand what the team is saying and with their inflection and the best arguments come from their evidence rather than from the speed of the debate. I want to understand what someone is saying and not so concerned about how fast that they can speak. I come from a Public Speaking background with FFA and that the best argument and ability to connect the dots with their evidence is key rather than how fast they get facts out.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Novice judge, 1 year of experience in LD, PF, policy on the beginner level.

Not a fan of spreading.

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.