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.

email: oliviagdebate@gmail.com

tech>truth

I <3 :

• kritiks
• k affs
• performance debate
• perms
• IMPACT CALC

although policy is not my preferred style of debate, i will vote on anything if its coherent, and explained.

please don't make me do the work for you... tell me why you've won, what you're winning on, and what my voters should be.

racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and any kind of bigoted opinions are NOT tolerated in the debate space.

have fun, be kind, be cordial.

the round is yours - do what you want, debate how you want!

My name is Matteo Gleason, and I debated for 6 years with the Boston Debate League (Policy), worked as a judge for the BDL and attended a couple of national tournaments.

I have judged policy for 5 years, and have seen almost every type of case thrown-whether at me, or while i'm judging. Run any case you would like, though I do have an extra level of respect for anyone who can run their policy, and not get bogged down by a barrage of off case.

What I will value most is a good impact calculation. I have my flow and can see which arguments are carried, and which arguments are dropped, so in the rebuttals if you can tell me why the impact of your side is greater than your opponent and you have the evidence and carry to back it up, you will almost certainly win the round.

General Rules:

1. Be respectful and nice! Any blatant ad hominem, or personal attacks will not reflect well on yourself, your team, or your speaks.
2. Be cordial, talk with me during prep time, be nice to your opponents, Debate is made great by the people we meet!
3. If there is a major gap I wont be impressed by one team running high theory to confuse and concern your opponent. Debate is about making everyone want to get to that high level, so if you discourage an opponent with high theory it discourages continued participation.

Things to note about me as a judge:

1. If you are spreading go for it! Just send me what you are reading so that I can reference it if need be.
2. Real world impact>theoretical potential
3. I will respect anyone who runs topicality against K's and delves into fairness and inclusion (if you do it right)

Welcome to my paradigm—if you’re here I’m probably about to judge you, or you’re about to do prefs/strikes. I’m Amishai (pronounced ah-me-SHY, he/him) call me Amishai or "judge" I don't care.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN AND FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE OR AFTER ROUNDS:
Agoodmangoldstein@gmail.com

My paradigm is long. It is probably the longest you have read.

Don't want to read it all? Say so and I will just quickly walk all debaters through it pre-round, no problem at all--otherwise I will assume you have read it and adjudicate accordingly. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR NOVICES AND MIDDLE SCHOOLERS--don't be intimidated, I am here to help you and not just judge you.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BIOGRAPHY:

I am a political science and theory student at American University and am a volunteer coach in the Washington Urban Debate League. I was most recently head coach of the policy debate team at MacArthur High School in Washington DC (Fall 2023). I was assistant coach for middle schoolers at Boston’s Mission Hill School (closed now) for a year (2019-2020) and a lab leader for the Boston Debate League's summer program in 2023. I have judged intermittently since Fall 2019, at all levels and divisions.

I debated policy for six years in the Boston Debate League (2017-2023), including as team captain for Latin Academy, and now do college parliamentary debate in the American Parliamentary Debate Association as well as coaching HS policy. I’m also a former moot court advocate with national awards, former high school history teaching assistant, historic home docent, and Democratic political organizer.

I’ve judged approximately 20 rounds under the fiscal redistribution resolution in multiple leagues, tournaments, and divisions and am very well versed in it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

READ THIS IF NOT A POLICY ROUND--IF IT IS POLICY (really, only policy), SKIP TO PARADIGM!

I am primarily a policy judge, so if you have me for anything other than policy (or public forum), the round will probably move slower. I am very proficient in moot court and American parliamentary debate as well, so if I happen to be judging one of those you can treat me as an experienced judge. If it is a speech event or any type of debate other than CX, LD, PF, or Parli, however, please treat me as if I am a lay judge in how you operate, ie slow down and explain. That said, I still have some confidence in my ability to handle complex issues and theory, and if I am confused, I will tell you. Read the paradigm below for good measure either way.

Note: I am fine with complex arguments in public forum and do not ascribe to the principle that a member of the general public should necessarily be able to understand every round--this can be cross-applied to any debate I judge. Debate is an academic activity, it is not a speech event.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD and PF debaters: I am judging you with the lens of a policy debater and judge. My preferences for policy below can be cross-applied. This is NOT true for parli as I am a collegiate parliamentary debater also and will typically use the “path of least resistance” method to determine the most meaningful argument which has gone insufficiently addressed by a side and assign the winner accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY COMPETITORS READ THIS (if you don’t read this you might have a very avoidable loss. You’ve been warned)

I know I can be unique in this, but: I don’t evaluate arguments in a vacuum unless you can really convince me that I should, if you run discrete K, framework, and CP that all kind of contradict each other it’s going to be difficult for me to vote for you unless you do a really killer job of it, because I think debate shouldn’t be a game of throwing a bunch of sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks. In other words, I will be considering all of your arguments in the same universe, and if they can’t coexist in that universe, you are going to lose. This makes me more of a truth judge than a tech judge, but I also don’t think these labels are great because I might vote more like a tech judge in a given round--I may simply "vote on the flow" if a round is extremely close, or if it is particularly dull and uninspiring clash-wise.

I don’t typically flow author names, extend by referencing warrants--please. I flow online and often in shorthand so my flow will likely be of little use to you, but I am happy to walk you through it if you ask afterwards. I am a quick typer but you need to clearly tell me what is case and what is off or I will do bare minimum figuring out what goes where. Constant on case—off case and back again jumping is confusing and will likely lead to some mistakes on the flow, and it’s bad speech organization so your speaks probably will suffer.

I am comfortable with just about any type of argument.

Ks are perfectly fine. I am pretty well versed in foundational Western political theory and a little bit of Chinese philosophy but not so much the literature base that appears in most Ks, though I am still happy to handle Ks, if your K is very generic I'll have seen it, if not I can still work with it and will understand the concepts at least at the elementary level.

I like framework and am happy to vote on quality framework debate.

I AM the judge you want for topicality as a frequent former T debater—do it well, be accurate, and I WILL be willing to vote on T (usually in combination with other things but I have given ballots solely on T on rare occasions).

I do not love conditionality but I am not averse to it, run that condo if you feel it’s necessary, I might scowl but I’ll be fine.

CAVEAT: IF YOU DO NOT FORMALLY, PROPERLY SET UP YOUR K/T/FRAMEWORK/ANY OTHER OFF I AM LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERING IT AND IT IS GOING TO BE AN AUTO-WIN FOR YOUR OPPONENT.

This is also true if you run extremely high theory on an inexperienced opponent without going through necessary motions to explain and make the round accessible! I come from an urban debate background, basic fairness and accessibility is a real issue to me. But so are the rules. Example: I’ll have more tolerance for a sloppy alt if you’re a new to varsity urban league debater than if you’ve competed at nats.

Judge kick: sure, if you can convince me that there’s a good reason beyond not wanting to argue on whatever you want me to kick

Competition args on CPs: yes please, just give me good clash and give me solid extensions (not lazy ones) even if aff doesn’t respond well

Disclosure (of case) is good in policy debate, and I am not going to be open to arguments that it isn’t good, nor am I very open to arguments that disclosure is only good or should only be done for a certain category/demographic of debater.

PLEASE don’t be too heavy on analytics in constructive. I know when you’re being lazy and making up for lack of cards. It’s tough to flow and it’s low quality debate. Find the balance and your analytics will support your evidence, but your analytics cannot take the place of evidence. If your constructive sounds like a rebuttal, you can assume I will not take kindly.

PET PEEVE: when a policy round consists of zero clear overlap or clash on the flow. This happens way way way more often than you would think. If this happens, I will typically take it out on speaks. CLASH. LOOK AT FLOW. DID I SAY CLASH? OK GOOD

WEIGHING, LINE BY LINE, IMPACT CALC AND VOTERS
Do it. You do it, other team doesn’t do it, you’re not guaranteed a win but your chances go way up. Judges are lazy—do the work on the flow for me. If there’s no semblance of basic impact calc/weighing/voters, I will vote on the flow alone with bare minimum weighing and you may not like the decisions I make because I don’t have any guidance from you on how to weigh different args. WRITE MY WHOLE RFD TOP TO BOTTOM IN YOUR 2AR/2NR, DOWN TO THE SMALLEST PARTS OF THE DECISION (not literally writing it, but tell me what you think should be in it).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Style and Sportsmanship:

I’m fine with spreading, but if you’re spreading so fast you’re literally gasping for air that’s not healthy for you (literally) and it’s going to hurt my flow. On a 1-10 of speed, my own preference is around a 6 BUT if you need to go slower to be clear and effective you should absolutely do so. If I can't understand you, I will tell you to slow down only once, and if you don’t adapt you’re accountable for my flow having huge gaps. In addition, you need to signpost, if you do not at least read the tag, it is highly likely that I will not catch all of your arguments which will hurt your overall chances in the round.

* I NO LONGER GIVE ANY TIME WARNINGS OUTSIDE OF HIGH SCHOOL NOVICE OR MIDDLE SCHOOL ROUNDS. * In any disputes over time, my timer will still overrule yours.

Stand when you speak, sit when you speak, wear a suit, wear pajama pants--I legitimately do not care. The only thing ever so slightly related to physical appearance that will affect my decision is if you appear visibly annoyed at something your partner or opponent does in round, hit the table, loudly sigh, etc. This happens frequently, is extremely poor sportsmanship and I will call it out with zero hesitation person by person in feedback.

Clash is good, personal attacks are not. If any conduct negatively influences the debate so much that I have to address it mid round, it will hurt your speaker points and possibly your overall chances. This seems to happen most frequently during cross examination, by far. It’s fine to try to back your opponent into a corner but don’t be personally hostile while doing it! I will not hesitate to call you out, but it's not fun for me and it is embarrassing for you and your team. I will GLEEFULLY give you a 25/26 if you, a skilled national circuit debater with tons of full on tournament wins, bully your opponents in cross (this happened, if it sounds oddly specific). I will do it even more gleefully if you have more structural advantages in your favor.

THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BUTIT KEEPS HAPPENING: if cross ex is open you and your partner both need to be asking and answering questions. You can choose to split the CX periods and have only one person talk in each one but IF ONE PERSON DOES ALL OR 75%+ OF CX TALKING, I WILL REDUCE SPEAKER POINTS FOR BOTHTEAM MEMBERS.

Just because I may seem personally inclined to certain ideological arguments DOES NOT mean I am going to vote for them by default. I like authentically contrarian/conservative cases a lot, as long as they aren't bigoted and are well reasoned/argued.

If your argument is grounded in calling your opponents racist or bigoted in some inherent manner, there better be a good case to back it up. (I don't mean settler colonialism args--I mean "aff should lose because they are x demographic and thus are racist")

Openly bigoted arguments will automatically lose. This includes explicit racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc, which, if bad enough, will make me end the round then and there. There's plenty of room to debate controversial policy on tough issues without making bigoted arguments.

I will NOT flow or vote on cross examination. I will closely observe it for the purpose of awarding speaks, but if you extract an important concession, contradiction etc and never bring it up in constructive/rebuttal, it’ll be like I didn’t hear it. And I will tell you that, disappointedly, when I give feedback. This approach hopefully forces you to not try to argue during cross and instead use it how you are supposed to—to help understand arguments and extract pieces to build your own.

There are no dumb questions until the round starts. Please try to clarify everything you need to with me prior to the 1AC.

I look at your speech doc as you read in addition to flowing, so I can and will catch you if you clip cards which will result in an auto-loss. Reminder—clipping and cutting are not the same! Being explicit that you are cutting a card is fine, deceptively clipping lines in your card and/or selectively choosing to read certain words with others to make the card say something it doesn’t actually say is certainly not fine. If you catch your opponent clipping or doing any other sort of evidence violation, say so! Don’t wait for your next speech. Just say it as soon as they’re done talking so I can review the cards and proceed according to NSDA rules.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPEAKS/DECISION/POSTROUND

I'm lenient with speaks. Yes, there’s a debate-wide problem of speaks inflation, but unless a tournament addresses it holistically with a clear rubric to evaluate debaters, I won't be the judge who denies a good debater a speaker award. This does not mean free 28s-30s but I typically don't give below a 27 in a round without major debater errors, so don't worry too much. Speak how you're comfortable. I won't penalize slow and steady speakers. I will penalize fast and unintelligible speakers. I'll NEVER penalize based on taking a second to catch your breath/find your place, or word pronunciation confusion/accents.

I’ll disclose my decision if I’m required to or it’s the general standard of the tournament. If it’s not, I won’t. I won't disclose speaks unless required to. Doing so detracts from the point of feedback--to improve your debating in substantive ways.

Asking questions after my decision and feedback is fine, especially if you’re confused as to why I voted how I did. If I can’t disclose, I unfortunately can’t answer a lot of questions except those about style and general argument choices. If you actually “postround” and argue with me, however, I will tell your coach and tab and give you no speaks. If your coach comes in and postrounds me, I will leave the room immediately, give you no speaks and tournament staff/tab will be informed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FINAL WORDS

Please have fun. We are not debating the end of the world (even if we are). We’ve all chosen to take time out of our day to be in the debate space. Let’s not take ourselves too seriously in it, and we'll all have a better time.

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,

Jake LoRocco

Updated 1/10/2023

-

About Me

I did policy debate for four years in high school at Dallas Jesuit. I did not debate in college but judged throughout and stayed involved in the community.

Currently judging/volunteering with the Boston Debate League.

-

General

I'm good with any type of argument (as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc...) in any form (K, DA, CP, etc...). No matter the argument though, tell me why it's important and why I should vote for it. And please make it aff specific.

You can talk as fast as you want (and I will let you know if you aren't clear).

I don't think new affs bad is a legitimate argument.

You can add me to an email thread if you find it completely necessary (annamarielyonss@gmail.com), but I strongly believe I should be able to understand and grasp your argument without it. I am judging on what you say and how you say it, not anything else.

I competed in policy debate in high school, went on to work with the Boston Debate League for a summer, then coached for a year. I am now a linguistics and political science student at the University of Southern Maine, so I look for a strong grasp on the language being used. Language is fluid, use that to your advantage.

I really value consistency and clarity. I see logical consistency as the key to winning a debate round; the way you choose to present and organize your thoughts can make or break, regardless of substance. I care far more about strong evidence and reasoning than technicalities, though I do still appreciate and understand the value occasional in them, I usually will not let a debate be won on a technicality unless it is dire.

I do not mind a fast pace, so long as it is a pace that you can maintain without getting too caught up. Please don't speak fast just to speak fast or cram info in. I would take a couple of well articulated and thought out pieces of evidence over a surplus of rushed evidence, it is truly a quality over quantity matter.

My biggest debate pet peeve is just reading straight off the card too much. Definitely refrain from doing so. I am open to whatever you want to do, K's or theory or whatnot, but do it right. Again, I would vote for a logical and consistent baseline argument over a poorly done theory argument.

Obvious rules like no racism, homophobia, disrespect to other team, and etc., all apply, and all will result in an automatic loss. All in all, remember- you can be competitive, you put a lot of time and effort into this, but don't let that get the best of you. Debate is supposed to be fun (:

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

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

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

I am Brandon (most of you guys could already tell lmao) and I have 5 years of debating varsity experience and so I have seen a lot of things being ran on either side.

Things to not do: don't cut card without saying "cut card," don't be disrespectful, and don't do things that you just normally can't do (I believe most of y'all know what to not do)

For most people who will be running a policy off, Great! Feel free to run any sorts of policy aff. The best thing about a policy aff is that we have the inherent squo which is causing the problem (harms) and then we have a proposed plan and solvency leading up to that. You can speed read or do whatever you feel comfortable doing. In a policy aff, I really love the rebuttal part and espeically when debaters give me sort of like an impact calc and something for me to vote on specifically. It could be the advantages, solvency, or just that vote on aff because neg conceived on this and this point therefore we win type of arguments. The exact samething applies to neg! However, if you can go offcase because it just makes the entire case more and more interesting. I love when neg goes offcase because it just talks about more problems that are hidden under the surface of the general case.

For people running a K AFF or a Kritik Aff, love it even more! I am personally into this whole idea of not following the resolution (though it can be annoying to do bc of all the T and framework debates you'll have to deal with) bc sometimes it prob just isn't for everyone yk. I don't have anything regarding my opinions on K debaters, but I do have one thing which is what is the voter and why should I vote you. Though the question is pretty broad, but I want a general solvency that I can or y'all can imagine playing out in the real world.

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

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.

Hey Everyone!

I'm a former debater affiliated with the Josiah Quincy Upper School.

NAULD Nationals Middle School x2

NAULD Nationals High School x2

Please add me to any email chain GMAIL: KTAN14@BOSTONK12.ORG

I'm fine with any arguments presented during a debate. Ts, Ks, and DisAd are fine as long as the cards are disclosed to each other.

If you don't do any of the explaining or reasoning I don't want to be the person that should process everything.

(PLEASE NOTE) I will not be reading the cards unless theres an disagreement with a card specifically.

K-affs are one of my least favorite cases to follow in policy due to the fact that most K-AFFS dont make sense to me in terms of the concepts presented. Although i'm fine with a K-aff and I wont take any points or i'll vote for the other side if you run a K-AFF, I would just prefer a normal AFF. Some of my favorite arguments include a very good impact analysis. I love nothing more than a good analysis and I believe that some of my favorite part in debate happens here. I also like when a debater makes arguments of why they overweight each other.

Theories are something that I will consider as an argument but I need to know why the theory is more significant than the debate.

Cross Ex is something I will consider in a debate and something I will flow on. Cross Ex is really important to me as it has an huge impact on my ballot. This wonderful time questioning sets the debate and gives me an understanding of how you work as an debater.

Speaking wise, I love a good spreader but as a spreader myself, I would always love it when you slow down during the tagline. This ensures that I can mark down the tagline and have it ready to pull up when needed. Please note that MY BALLOT will be depend on what I flow. If you decided to spread and you are not clear and I don't flow, don't expect to win the ballot.

Other than that, I love debates that have character and passion.

Good Luck!

Kevin Tan

Last edited: 1/12/23

Hey y'all,

Introduction: My name is Ariella Taylor and I am a freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I have experience running Ks (black futuristic stuff and afro pess) and regular policy cases.

Voting: Impact Calc and Internal link explanations are key for my vote. If the debate is coming down to fw please tell me how I am supposed to engage with these arguments, tell me what my role as a judge is in this round.

If you run - DA - CP - Inherency cards, I need you to explain to me why these arguments matter. Many Aff teams state a problem but do not articulate how their plan solves it. I will buy the internal link between the plan and solvency impacts if the neg does not bring it up, but if they even hint at it I will agree and concede to a huge gap in your case. I try to come into each round unbiased, in most cases, I will not care about (for example) whether black people can vote or not, or billions of people dying in a nuclear war if you do not tell me why I should care. Moreover, please please do not assume that I will just buy args because I am black, I will not.

* Note for the Aff: Please try to get to your solvency in the first speech

* Note for the Neg: Do impact calc on your Das and turns

* I will vote any team down for clear bullying.

Hi, y'all

My name is Walter Wexler, I'm a Freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I've been debating for five years and I've been judging for three years and one coaching.

Personally, I ran policy for most of my debate career, but I've run Cap K and I have pretty extensive experience with Set Col, Afropess, etc as those are very popular in my league. I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, and as such framework is probably the most important thing in the round as it gives me a way to evaluate. I'm open to any well-articulated argument, but don't assume I have a lot of experience in this topic as I haven't judged much this year.

*Clear bullying will be an automatic vote down

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.