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 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!

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

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.

----

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.

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.

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 (:

Standard FLAY Judge; I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate for Boston Latin for 6 years.

TLDR: Warrant + Weigh = Win

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag-not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop for judges : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, if you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

**My partner and I made it our mission to run environmental arguments on every topic in our senior year. That being said, I'd look favorably upon climate change related impacts and links, if ran well.

**Regarding progressive args, I'm not very well versed in them so run them at your own risk. The likelihood of me voting for K's, t shells and theory shells etc. are low simply because I'm not familiar with them. If there's actual abuse in the round, just explain it in paragraph form or put it in a way that I would be able to easily follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or reach me at cinly.mo@columbia.edu

Good luck, have fun, and learn things!

My name is Lillian Myers (they/them) new at judging, but I was the team captain of the Oregon City High School speech and debate team in 2019-2020 and I was a 2020 National Tournament Qualifier in Congress. I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, Radio Commentary, Informative, Prose, Programmed Oral Interpretation, and Extemporaneous. Currently, I'm a sophomore at Simmons University as a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Africana Studies double major.

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. I will not tolerate spreading of any kind, you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity. Because of my disability please do not spread. I don't want to have to mark you down for this, so please don't spread during my rounds.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that said, I am not a fan of kritiks or debate theory. If you do choose to use them, do not stray too far from the resolution. I would rather you spend more time on your case and addressing the resolution than trying to stray from the topic or argue about the debate itself.

hey, you found my paradigm. good job.

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.

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.