CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round I have always encouraged signposting, it ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go and this could work against you. Take control of the round do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on, for the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear then I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you are advocating for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing, both are good just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why is the CP competitive compared to the AFF. There are lots of ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time if any at all with the literature so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which as a NEG Strat in my rounds is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it, but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through, or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFERE. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence, and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round and for me clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill.

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief.

Please tell me when and where I will be voting to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim it could win you the round!

This is my third time judging LD. Please speak clearly and not too fast. Explain your arguments thoroughly and signpost in rebuttals. Also, be respectful to your opponents. Good luck and have fun!

debated for archbishop mitty 3 years, did LD

email is alexali000[@]gmail[.]com

important:

- no in-round discrimination.

general:

- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be considered complete

- different arguments begin at different risks. some arguments are just less probable than others so you need to do more work to convince me of them

- tell me how i should evaluate the round and weigh

- signpost, number, explain, and slow down during rebuttals

sdandersondebate at gmail dot com

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014. Most of that time has been spent judging and coaching traditional LD, but I've been actively coaching circuit debate since 2019. I'm most comfortable judging stock policy and phil arguments, but I'm not completely incompetent at or ideologically opposed to evaluating any type of debate. I'm not a great flow so either slow down (perhaps 80% of top circuit speed) or err on the side of overexplanation, explicit judge instruction, and quality over quantity.

If you're a flexible debater, a substantive phil debater, or a policy debater willing to defend util and have thought about how to answer phil strategies, you can pref me high. If you're a K or tricks debater, you can pref me somewhere in the middle. If you want to avoid phil and tricks at all costs, there are judges you should strike before me but you still shouldn't pref me very high.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.
• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much -- it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and arguments that one impact is the only thing that matters are usually bad. If your opponent is making an argument on the pre-fiat layer then don't be purely defensive, give me offensive impacts to weigh against or I may vote on extremely marginal offense on theory, an IVI, etc. That offensive argument can be "this frivolous argument is bad because it crowds out topic education, which is valuable because [brief but explicit warrant]".
• I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s always a risk of offense.
• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.
• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.
• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.
• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a logical extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

Policy

• This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit. I don't evaluate that many policy v policy rounds but I'm fine evaluating them.
• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war. Likewise, probabilistic reasoning is good -- I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.
• Analytic CPs are bad except in the most trivial of cases (e.g. the aff says "the plan results in cannabis legalization", in which case an analytic "legalize cannabis" CP makes sense).
• You don't get to round up to extinction. Laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's.
• Plan text in a vacuum makes sense but I think it cuts both ways. If the aff writes a deliberately vague plan text to skirt T and counterplan competition then the neg can take advantage of that vagueness, the aff forfeits the right in rebuttals to give specific explanations of how their plan function to avoid neg turns, solvency takeouts, etc.
• I think I have a good grasp on counterplan competition. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and/or normal means are bad and should lose to theory or perms, counterplans that compete on both immediacy and certainty are probably legit (the neg still needs to read definitions to establish competition) but theory or limited intrinsicness can be compelling.\
• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by "durable fiat solves".

Ks

• This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with -- I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are fine, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).
• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.
• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case -- clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea". On the other hand, my agnosticism means you don't have to be *too* accommodating either -- feel free to go for theory, reps offense bad, policymaking education solves extinction, etc. as long as you're giving me explicit impacts.
• If you make a strong ontology argument, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.
• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.
• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but that doesn't mean fairness is an automatic trump card, the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I'm not going to say that I personally like strategies where the aff just impact turns T instead of defending something substantive by the end of the round, but you can win my ballot that way if the neg mishandles them. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly -- just don't do debate then.

Theory/T

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I'm not good for purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics.
• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it -- if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.
• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true -- 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.
• Hidden shells are bad and I reserve the right to ignore them.
• On T, I'm biased towards the views that the words in the resolution mean something and that large topics are bad. I don't share the intuition that LD suffers from a big overlimiting problem that requires breaking the resolution to fix.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• Don’t be racist, sexist, etc.
• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• I won’t vote for arguments along the lines of “death good” – “extinction good to prevent universe destruction or hypothetical future s-risks” is okay, but that doesn’t include “there’s so much suffering in the world right now that it would be better if we ended it”.
• - I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.
• Accessibility: Debaters should be willing to make *reasonable* accommodations requested in a timely manner (i.e. not right before the round). This includes speaking slow enough that you’re comprehensible to a lay audience (which is still quite a bit faster than conversational speed), but doesn't include "debate traditionally". I will drop you if you abuse accommodation requests to give yourself an asymmetric advantage. I don't want debaters making disingenuous accessibility arguments in-round if it's something that could have been resolved with a good faith accomodation request.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Current policy debater, kritikal literature

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Your links are bad, your impacts won't happen, and you're wasting my time. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't aspec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

I will dock half a speaker point if you use Moen 16 or Goodin 95 in your framework. They are wildly overused, and most cuts don't say what people claim they do.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I am a parent judge.

Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If used, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words, I will not be able to understand your claim.

Emphasize your important contentions/points.

Use the best of your knowledge, and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.

I do not prefer spreading. Deliver an organized and clear speech.

I will not impose my personal beliefs, and/or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. Impact calculus would be very helpful.

Do include me in any email chain - karthikakrishnna@gmail.com

All the best.

Debate well. Don't go fast.  Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech (mostly extemp) and congressional debate, but I have judged PF and LD for the past 14 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t…

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Cypress Bay 2020

FIU- current

I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season

I'd like to be on the chain :) garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

My voting record going into the Longhorn tournament is exactly 50/50 aff/neg.

Public forum stuff is near the bottom

Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref or strike. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?

If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.

Longer version

• Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Bailey Rung, Rob Fernandez

• Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else

• Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)

• The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
• - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
• - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
• - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
• - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.

• - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
• - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
• - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
• - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
• - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.

- Misc:

1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you

2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along

3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters

4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r

5. Do your own thing and do it well

6. Don't be afraid to ask questions

7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.

8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.

- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech --X---------------------------------------------Truth

Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard

Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon

Animate Bleach's final arc ---------X----------------------------------- Please stop >> this is happening and I'm vvv excited

A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file

A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors

Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6

I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie

Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up

Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune

The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Please don't dodge questions in cross

Public Forum

I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.

I'm okay with speed.

I'm good with technical arguments.

Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.

Update Blue Key 2022

you're definitely going to have to do a lot to convince me that phil is worth voting on. it's not an argument that i spent or currently spend time thinking about. Probably leave the weird stuff at home, but you're even going to have to slow down and explain kantian arguments to me.

also; theory. Totally cool with topicality/framework, but theory debates get messy really easily for me. Please explain why your model of debate is actually net-better than the alternative.

Paradigm - 2022-2023 Season

Pronouns: they/she, them/her (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

Roadmaps: I do allow off-time roadmaps - just be clear you are offering one before you start so I don't trigger my speech timer. Once that timer begins, I do not stop it. Similar to my comment about pacing, it's important that you are clear about where on the flow your comments/arguments/rebuttals are being directed. If I have to guess at what you are responding to, I may put in the wrong spot on my flow. This can lead to situations where arguments appear dropped or don't appear to truly rebut what it was flowed with. Providing clear signposts during your speech can save everyone a lot of headaches here.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

General: I am an 'old-school' former LDer so I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, LD is about value propositions not plans or statistics and that is what I will base my decisions on.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 14 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 5 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.


Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

As a former news reporter, speaking skills and communications are very important to me.

In the real world, understanding is key to getting a point across. If one is speaking too quickly, it can be difficult to process and come to an educated conclusion.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 1L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; I don't gut check "bad" arguments; I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; I feel like this goes without saying but I will not vote on something I don't understand; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by); I enjoy analytics more than empirics; I love tricks, but I think they're only pedagogically valuable for their ability to boost critical thinking other than that they're generally just for funzies and potentially bad for debate; due to the nature of my paradigm and the debates I typically judge because of it please read the fourth point in the general section as well; lastly my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- there are only a few norms I think are pretty true; among them are judge intervention bad, no new 2ar arguments, and normal speech times (although these can easily change and I'm coming around to new 2ar args as the default; idk it's complicated)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance is offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of these as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I am persuaded by a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it is extended throughout

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate like I would a nat circuit for a local

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format

ONLINE: you must send docs if you’re going to talk fast. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread too fast. You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round.

I prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args. Ignore this section if you're reading

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

I am a new parent judge.

Last Updated: 04/29/2023

Pronouns: They/Them

Background:

• Competed for 6 years: 4 in LD and 2 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 3 years now.

Overview:

• Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.
• If you say any hateful speeches/arguments or ones that are just plain disrespectful, expect a low ranking/bad ballot if not a report to TAB.

Congress:

• This is a debate event. If you are too worried about making sure speeches are given and are going to only do a couple of cycles of debate on each bill so you can get through everything, I would love to introduce you to this great event called Speech! But sadly that is not what you are in right now so let's debate.
• There should be NO reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. What in the world are you saying that could give someone a trauma response in round?! We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I PROMISE you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for your lack of skills as a debater above anything else.
• Congress is a debate event. If we are past the second cycle of debate, I honestly don't care how pretty you speak or how well-prepared and versed your speech is, I expect some sort of clash, name-dropping, and refuting of the arguments said (better with evidence). If you are giving a prepped speech with no clash in the 4th cycle, I can guarantee your rank will not be high.
• I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
• If you are able to read the room and see it is heavy on one side and you flip sides, not only do I love that but there is a high chance your rank is going to be better because I can tell you came prepared and have been paying attention.
• No Base 1/Base 2 stuff. It is honestly dumb and I don't care for it.
• I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
• Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. I don't care if you just gave the most groundbreaking impressive speech that blessed every eardrum that heard it, if you are rude and disrespectful, you're rank is going straight to the bottom.

Notes for PO's:

• You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform. The reasoning for this is there are some POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position. And on that note, if you have a program that does all the work for you and you are still making mistakes, expect a low rank.
• Please to god do not tell us to rank you. We are told to in judging meetings and TAB reminds us every round. It is unneeded and we already know.
• The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you", "and we will never know the answer to that question" or any other sentence that is unneeded ESPECIALLY if it's a smart-ass comment, it will just reflect poorly on you. You should be moving so efficiently that you can move speech to questioning to speech within seconds. In addition, the chair does not have emotions.
• I know this Paradigm is long and seems like a lot but please do not be scared to ask me questions! I have POed more times than I can count and it's nerve-racking. Let me help you succeed and grow so we can have a fun fast round.

LD:

• If you start running a K, I will just want to run back to my congo land, please I beg don't make me suffer listening to one

Overall I just want you kids to have fun. Let's work together to create a safe space in this round where everyone feels comfortable and enjoy the round! :D

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of five in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

Email: Mburke594@hotmail.com

My name is Matt Burke, my pronouns are he/him, and I am a first year judge in debate.

In round, I wish to hear clear and concise arguments. I expect debaters to have evidence to back up most of their claims. Direct responses to opponents and their arguments/ evidence is essential as well. If your opponent does not respond to a piece of your evidence or argument I expect you to extend it through the round.

Regarding that I have not judged many LD debate rounds, I wish that debaters speak and present their arguments slowly.

In the end, the debate comes down to which opponent further proves their side based on evidence, arguments, and impacts. Impacts should not be far-fetched, I will end up voting for the argument that makes more sense and has a better link than the impact that may have a "bigger boom"

At the end of the debate, make it clear to me why you should win and summarize the debate to me in your favor. This makes my decision a lot easier.

Please be respectful to your opponent during the debate. Have fun !

I am a parent judge, and my daughter competes in Lincoln-Douglas debate. While I feel this has given me a good understanding of this debate format I never competed myself. Due never competing myself, I prefer a simple and well structured round. Clear usage of roadmapping, signposting, and other argument headings should be utilized in every speech. I prefer to focus on the big ideas of the round, rather than nit-pick small details, and think this is the most efficient way to decide on the issues at hand. If I can understand your argument and felt you communicated more clearly you have a much better chance at winning my ballot.

My background: Former attorney

What I look for in a Debate: Strong oral presentation, balance of evidence, analysis, application to the resolution and logic. Respectful sportsmanship. Prefer no spreading.

I am a parent judge, so no spreading.

Speaking:

- Clear speech

- Moderate pace

Responses and Argumentation:

- Organized signposting is best

- Don't use too much debate vocabulary

Voting:

- I am a lay judge with some experience

- I will take notes on important points, pros and cons of each side

- I also judge off of speaking points and flow of information

- Please be respectful to me but also your opponents

Hello,

My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.

I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.

I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!

I was an LD debater for three years in High School. I ran a generally traditional style of debate, but don't have any major biases against against progressive debate with an absolutely clear link to the topic.

I will vote on T and Theory, K's are less attractive but I will vote on it if the argument is clearly linked and well explained. I honestly have a hard time buying non-Topical Narratives, so it's not your best strategy to use, but you can try it if you want. THE LINK IS PARAMOUNT.

I love solid topical debates!

Voting issues are key. Tell me what to vote on. If you leave me a mess to judge you may not like how I choose to vote. Make it easy for me to give you the win.

Spreading is okay, but if I need to read what you are saying to understand it you are going too fast. I will judge only based what I hear and understand in the round. I will say clear.

I keep a flow. Dropped Args are huge. EXTEND THEM! Show me their impact.

I will weigh the round based off of the weighing mechanism presented in the round, V and VC are default if nothing else is presented.

If you have any questions I am happy to answer them before the round. As well as give appropriate feed back after the round. Debate is the best! Let's try to laugh, be respectful, and learn together.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.

I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. IMO you should be 15 mins early to your round

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!

I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.

I air Tech/Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong link. Needs to have all components and please make clear the status of your counterplan in your constructive. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose - I do not want to vote on disclosure theory (esp round report) - so idk only run disclosure theory that makes sense.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think new affs are good - I need like SUPER proven abuse to vote on new affs bad.

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan.

Special Note on Cap K's

It is an uphill battle with me on the Cap K tbh. You can read it watch what you say. I have voted on lots of cap Ks before so its not impossible to get my ballot. I can not stand when you claim a country has successfully converted to communism when it has not in reality. I do think some countries have but I have had competitors claim Spain is a communist nation. Also when referring to failures of communism do not just say "South America" or "The Caribbean" . Further, do not conflate people who had to flee say Cuba to "All just slave owners" that is just not historically inaccurate and discrediting of the reality. TLDR: You can read it but you best be read up on communism and don't you dare try to say Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD.

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

I am a poli sci major and currently work on a campaign. I know politics so do not say something dumb that makes no sense.

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does!

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you well. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ NATO topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol

I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused

Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here

Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mus

Dont go far when the debate is over I tend to know my decision when the debate ends

If you are gonna email questions later pls let me know so I can keep my flows I often throw them away I wanna be to help but its hard for me to answer your questions after the fact if I don't have my flows

K's:

Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.

I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and annoys me just do what you do best)

I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.

K aff's:

Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.

When you get into FWK/T debates, extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.

I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.

FWK/T:

It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.

PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.

I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.

Das/ CPs:

Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…

Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.

And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...

Theory:

I think theory is procedural make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.

Policy Affs v K:

Engage the K!Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.

How to get better speaker points with me

Be nice, be funny, be personable

Organized docs and speeches

Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4

Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30

A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever

I have been involved in speech and debate for 27 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 21 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.

Bullies get dropped

If your argument needs a trigger warning, either ask before the round S T A R T S or don’t read it. Don't say mid speech "trigger warning!" because judges cannot just up and leave a round the same way you can, and you're not actually giving any students time to react. I think like 90% of tw are super performative and framed as “imma read this, deal w it”

.

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE!

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

Skim the paradigm and read the bold parts if you want

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

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

Competed in Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan High School in MN, traveled a little bit but certainly wasn't a circuit kid

Congress coach 2019-present at Armstrong and Cooper High Schools in MN

Congress judge first, but pls don’t assume I'm not a "debate" judge :)

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21. PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester.

Overall, I prefer chess over checkers. But both are valuable games!

Email chain or questions/critiques/whatever AFTER the round: Davi3736@umn.edu

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

LD:

-I guarantee I can't understand your spreading. Go slower than you would in front of a circuit judge. You don't need to go lay, but you def can't go 100%. Idk the bright line exactly but I’ll “clear/slow” you until you slow down enough

-STRAIGHT UP NOT FLOWING OFF A SPEECH DOC HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GIMME PEN TIME !!!!!!!

-Things you should keep tucked away when you're in front of me: anything bigoted, "get good", graphic descriptions, Malthus, and friv theory. I just, quite simply, will not vote for teams who do these things. Otherwise, you do you.

-"Jargon/theory/progressive debate bad" IS AN ARGUMENT

-Personally I'd rather hear "on topic" case debates but hey, links are links

-I can get down w a theory debate, but I am very unlikely to vote on your IVI unless there is pretty good reason. I'm really, really sick of people accusing each other of things that are gravely serious w minimal proof. If your opponent truly did something like commodify Indigenous culture or perpetuate sexism in the debate space, I do not care abt the flow. Articulate it, and I'll vote on it. Seriously, go hard on it bc if you actually prove that your opponent was actively doing bad things, that's all I care abt. Bullies get dropped.

-"Get good," "speed up," or "it's not my problem you're slow" is nowhere near the response you think it is. I will no longer be accepting this as a valid answer to theory. Ever.

-AGAIN, If you do end up spreading, please do not go your top speed...... No matter how long/hard I carbo-load, I will never be a computer.

-Run whatever on whatever side. Rejecting the topic is only fun if you give me a good reason to. Just tell me my role as a judge and I’ll listen

-Ks can be dope but PLEASE explain the obscure buzzwords to me. I DOUBT I HAVE READ YOUR THEORY UNLESS IT’S RELATIVELY BASIC. I'll vote against any k if you're clearly being unclear as a tactic, all it takes is an overview (or a t shell!) and I'll evaluate it.

-I think academia jargon to confuse your opponent is so silly

-Feel free to ask me questions post-round! Don't get mean bc I'll be :( but I'm definitely down to sift through my flow with you, assuming the tournament allows it.

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

PF (as of Penn 2022):

I usually judge LD/Congress, but I know how to flow. So debate well, and I decide strictly on the flow. Tech over truth unless you're saying some really wonky stuff

Overviews that address topicality can definitely be the independent reason I vote.

Things I need: Impact calculus, timestamps on cards, CLEAR IMPACTS, and a clean decision made FOR ME in the ff

In the ff, I need you to BRING THE DEBATE TO IT'S SIMPLEST TERMS. Show me why, at the end of the day, your side has holistically won the round. What arg/s are you going for, and why are they most important?

Not in a speech, not on my flow. Cross isn't a speech.

SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP

You get like 5-10 seconds of grace time.

Weigh if you wanna win.

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

Congress:

TLDR: I see it all

If you're reading this right now, it's likely right before round bc I probably said something like "please read paradigms", so good for you. Good start, now read this until there aren't any words left. Do this before every single round you'll ever have in your entire life.

I hate that thing POs do that's like "I presided in Florida and New York and on Mars blah blah blah". Say it if you want but I will 10000000% have a shifted impression of you. Good presiding has quite literally nothing to do with the circuit, and getting elected IS NEVER ABOUT SKILL ANYWAY HAHAHAHAHA

Root cause claims almost always suck in congress idc

5 Easiest ways to get on my ballot as a speaker: giving the right speech at the right time, weighing, good dq, being prepared/well read, give different types of speeches (a good sponsor and a good crystal is much more impressive than 2 good early speeches, for example)

5 Easiest ways to get off my ballot as a speaker: same sided questioning (with no goal/trap), rehash w/o differentiation, monopolizing dq through aggression, wrong speech at the wrong time, and messing around/not listening during other's speeches.

POing: I have a "high threshold" for ranking POs, but I couldn't think my threshold could be any lower. Track the round and be fair, you will finish well. No errors + expediency guarantees t5, no question. However, literally stop talking. Please. I do not care if the chair thanks you and I do not care if your spreadsheet is super colorful and I do not care if "that was the Xth aff speech, now follows x questioning etc". I don't care about quite literally anything you have to say outside of when students can speak. I will time your extra nonsensical monologues and move you down very harshly if you're making us lose speech time. Every single quirky thing you do to appeal to parent judges will move you down in front of me, I'm so serious. If you use a PO algorithm/app/something that does the work for you, instant drop. Don't tell me to rank you. Addressing the chamber is not a motion nor a grantable privilege.

You don't "start at rank and move up or down". I weigh your value as a PO against speakers that furthered the debate. Sometimes a good PO just isn't as valuable to the round as x amount of great debaters, and sometimes a good PO is more valuable to the round than the speakers.

-I am a HARSH JUDGE. Mostly bc I prefer to point out what to change as opposed to what you're good at already. I'm usually a parli though:)

-I judge Congress very holistically. Anyone from the person who opens the floor for PO nominations to the PO who calls orders of the day can get my 1.

-I judge you on the basis of two categories; 90% what you do (includes refutation, questioning, speech content, and good parlipro) and 10% how you do it. I really just do not care how gorgeous your voice is, and it is not my job to randomly p*lice your style. You do you. This is a debate space before it's anything else. Think of "speaking really pretty" as extra credit, not the main assignment. I guess it could teeter your grade one way or another a tiny bit, but it will not flip you from an F- to an A+. Not even to an F+

-That doesn't mean I don't care about presiding officers. I have given many POs the 1, but I have given more DFL. Presiding matters. Be fair and I'll rank you well, be unfair and I will rank you very very low. Just track the round and do it right. All the extra sprinkles and stuff you throw on just gets in the way.

-That also doesn't mean I don't care about constructive speeches. I have given many sponsors the 1. Every speech has an integral role to offer the chamber. Do it RIGHT and get rewarded.

Peep @Impact.Institue_ on Instagram or www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com to check out a completely free online congress space with some amazingly qualified coaches

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Seriously, idk how to make it any more clear. My job titles are "debate coach", "debate judge", and "restaurant cook and Foodsby deliverer". This is not competitive oratory. This is not extemp. This is not discussion.

This is Congressional Debate. Don't mess up that "debate" part in front of me.

I have over a decade judging debate and four years of debating LD and Policy. While I understand the sport aspects of debate currently in play my judging still relies on proper analysis and links, a strong understanding of the theories you present and your ability to frame the information you are using into a coherent meta-narrative.

General: ddelgado@tempeprep.org

- Pronouns: she/her

- Director/Head Coach of Speech & Debate at Tempe Preparatory Academy

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

I would prefer everybody to be respectful, and enjoy information driven arguments over being fast and overly persuasive

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.

I am a first-year parent judge. I appreciate debaters speaking at a coherent and moderate pace. If I cannot comprehend a debater's spoken words, verbatim, that content will be dropped. I do not tolerate spreading in rounds.

I am a lay/parent judge. I have limited experience. Please go slowly, clearly, and explain your arguments in detail. Thank you!

I am the same judge as the other Madelynn Einhorn. I just had to make a new account. You'll find an extensive paradigm if you look there (just search Madelynn Einhorn as a judge on tabroom!). To keep it short, 8-years of debate (2PF, 6 policy), collegiate national champion, judged extensively including nsda policy finals, feel free to ask any questions!

I'm a judge of modest experience, well-versed in the minutiae of debate protocols, who enjoys listening to a spirited debate. I'm not overly fond of speed presentation, especially when the debater is speaking so quickly they aren't effectively making their stated case.

I tend to make my decision based upon how well the arguments have been presented and which side has been more convincing with regard to making their case.

I ask that competitors do not spread and that they let their opponent finish their sentences during cross. No spreading and no cutting people off while talking! Thank you :)

Email- Aaron.Does.Debate@gmail.com - add me to an email chain. Feel free to email me any questions after the debate.

Hello to all who reads this!

My name is Aaron, I did 4 years of Highschool debate and am currently doing my first year of collegiate policy debate at the University of Houston as a freshman! As such I am fairly familiar with all forms of debates and styles so don't be too scared to run something new and fun.

In general, I will vote for anything, just explain your position well. I have been delving mostly into the collegiate policy topic, so I haven't spent a lot of time researching the high school topics as such make sure you're clear about your argument.

TLDR: I will not explain nor extend arguments for you. I think theory, framework and T come first. Generally, I don't like T. Impact calc key (extinction outweighs is my default though I can be persuaded with FW), extend warrants not taglines and compare evidence. on case args are key. I love clash of Civs :). You should make sure you signpost and control my flows if you want to win.

K- 1

Framework-2

Policy- 3

T-4

Theory-5

--Broad Topics--

Speed- Always clarity over speed. I will accept fast arguments but expect a hit to the speaks if you sacrifice clarity for speed. otherwise, if you're fast and clear expect an increase in speaks- unless you have some kind of disability which inhibits this in which case, please let me know so I take that into consideration.

Stock issues- always important if you're lacking harms, you lose.

Evidence- If you have to ask yourself about whether or not it needs ev then it needs ev. Make sure you understand your own ev. Even if I know what your ev is saying I will pretend I don't and down you if the ev is key to the round. Can't convince me if you can't explain it. Ev comparison is Key.

Weighing- my default is weighing based on key arguments and magnitude so I will weigh extinction over structural violence normally BUT if you explain to me why I shouldn't, I will happily listen and weigh differently (extinction rhetoric bad, SV prerequisite, ETC).

General notes- make sure you're extending arguments and warrants not tags. (Tell me why your evidence is true and what the evidence is saying. I hate hearing rebuttals that just repeat taglines.) Tech>Truth except in cases that are very clearly not good tech/good for education. (Even if your opponent's drop a slavery good argument even though you were technically ahead on that I will not vote on it.) Don't make Bigoted/bad arguments in front of me. Bigoted arguments will get you downed and reported to your coaches/the tournament staff.

--Specific Topics--

K- framework is key. you need to tell me why and how I should weigh the K vs The AFF or vice versa, In general I lean more towards basic Pess K's and the cap K for voting, but I'll vote on anything just make sure it makes sense. Beyond framework make sure your alt solves and that you're explaining your links. For the neg, I think most K's require robust framework debate so make sure you're doing work here - Links need to be clear and you need to explain how they lead to the impact and how the alt solves. specific stuff here - I don't like omission links that much but I try not to let that sway me, I prefer big impacts on the K page in the event you need to win impact calc (unless you won FW), ALT SOLVENCY IS KEY, also I hate immaterial alts, I will vote on immaterial alts but It takes more work on alt solvency to make sure I understand exactly how you solve.- alt solvency is key because presumption does flip Aff if the alt is net worse for the squo- performances need to link to your theory of power don't just start yelling for no reason.

K Aff's- Refer back to my opinion on K's except now you have to convince me on why I should weigh your K at all or else I will vote on T.

T- T is a procedural fairness question so I will evaluate this first but generally I don't like T debate I think it's a boring debate and more often than not the Aff is most definitely topical. That being said I will not ignore the T flow if you are a T centered debater don't be scared to read it I will evaluate it I will simply be unamused while doing so. That being said I'd recommend putting your time elsewhere. (If you're hitting a K Aff - T is strategic this is one of the only situations where I'll happily vote on a T debate that was too close for comfort.)

Disad's- Good links! I generally don't like generic links. I will accept link boosters in the 2NC if need be but try and make your link clear to begin with. + 1 Disad is almost never enough to win around against a good aff remember to pair with something else (DA+Presumption, DA+CP)
CP's- You need net benefits, and you need to explain why it cannot be permed very clearly or I will not vote on it (assuming your opponent correctly calls you out on these things). - also, presumption flips Aff when the CP is net worse for the squo.

Adv CP's- same rules except only apply to specific advantages- net benefits to the advantage and why can't they perm?

Case- Case is the most important thing for the Aff. if you lose on the case flow then nothing else matters. Make sure you properly defend case. On the neg however if you have proper framing and off case positions case is less important, I still recommend covering it as much as possible as you're only more likely to lose if you don't cover case.

Theory- I will make fun of you for making silly theories on the RFD BUT a dropped/not covered argument is a true argument. That means even a silly theory could lose you a round if its properly explained and you don't cover it.

--more specific theory--

Condo bad- generally I don't like to vote on this either, but I will if the neg mishandles it or if the neg is running like 10 condo Args (yes, Conditional planks count, and I think act as an impact multiplier on condo).

Dispo bad- same as condo

Perf con- Usually this has to be super blown up and or conceded for this to even be considered a voter to me. I personally subscribe to multiple worlds. A good Aff and debater should be able to answer performative contradictions and a good neg debater should be able to explain why they can be contradictory.

General theory- judge kick bad- default is reasonability- Theory should be a rule of debate that is good not just a random reason to reject the team. - most theory probably isn't a real voter besides condo- I am VERY unlikely to pull the trigger on theory unless its condo, perfcon, or dropped.

Presumption- you have to tell me why. I will not explain to myself why the Aff or the CP or the Alt is worse than or for the squo

General biases- on the neg I like good K debate, so a good K is an easy way to the ballot, I am also partial to Disads, I dislike T, everything else is fairly neutral. - on the Aff side I like seeing new and fun advantages and am partial to strong yet new (to me) link chains that I haven't seen before. If you can make an advantage that has strong links and impacts that I haven't seen before I will love to vote on it, that isn't to say you can't win without originality, I just like it when I am judging is all.

Speaks- I Think I go by standard norms, but I'll outline anyway. (I can tend to be harsh don't take it personally.)

30- perfect (if you get a thirty out of me be proud)

29- very good

28- good/acceptable

27- ok...

anything below 27 you had to have messed up extremely bad.

Former US Extemper, PFer, and OOer, with a strong focus/storied career in extemp.

Currently compete in british parliamentary debate and occasionally APDA with Stanford.

truth > tech, the point of debate is education on topics + critical thinking skills so don't tell me that nuke war with china will happen if we don't pass your water infrastructure bill

only spread if you're good at it lol. if i'm confused, i'll look confused.

i won't flow cross or take it into consideration for who wins UNLESS you bring up something that happened on cross during a speech and use it to make an argument, which you should probably do.

please weigh impacts for me this is probably the most important thing you can do especially if theres a lot of confusing clash on warranting. also "lol big magnitude means better impact :)" is not a good way of weighing impacts, explain things more than just one sentence of "we win on magnitude" - why should we care about magnitude over prob/timeframe or vice versa?

plz signpost and keep speech organized

glhf

. lay Judge. Please no spreading or speed, no progressive. English second language so no bigger words If I can’t understand you it doesn't serve you well. I may not flow everything.

Me

I’m in my 15th year as a history teacher and 2nd year as a Debate sponsor/coach of our up-and-coming Debate program at MAST@FIU BBC Campus. I have a BA in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master’s in History from Florida International University and am currently working on my PhD in History. I have judged in a state tournament, local tournaments, and some online scrimmage events.

General paradigm

I’m open to whatever kind of position you want to use in the debate. I prefer clear roadmaps and explanations. I do not prefer, however, radical Kritiks and spreading.

Delivery

I like to take notes/flow. I do not prefer excessive speed.

Points

I avoid giving 30s except for a truly exceptional performance. I use speaker points as rank.

Debate

I am most familiar with Lincoln-Douglas though on occasion have judged PF and Congress. Please explain jargon.

Prog Jargon:

• No trix please. I probably won't catch them or understand them.
• Explain K's well to me. I'm not familiar with the lit.
• I err T, I'll vote on Topicality. 
• Please explain Theory well.
• Plans are ok, just explain them well. Make sure your links/internal-links are clear. 
•  

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11.

I am currently the policy debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

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

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I err tech over truth. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m open to nontraditional arguments and K affs.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

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

General - I don't like vague plan texts. US and NATO should do cybersecurity is vague. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaks if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaks. Slow down a little on theory / T shells or at least signpost your standards. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality - Important for limits but I think T and FW abuse is bad for debate. Don't spread like 8 violations. Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about.

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

Kritiks - I understand these can be complex topics but I think we can all recognize when the strat is to make it too confusing for the opponent to follow. I need to be able to understand your alt and what you’re trying to accomplish. You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your alt tag without contextualizing or explaining how you functionally access solvency, you don't understand your alt. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I tend to err neg unless you have a specific advocacy for me to endorse. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I like perms, but you need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that. I think I start being open to condo bad around 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I like fiat theory arguments. Especially with some of these ridiculous CPs on the NATO topic. You fiat 29 bilateral agreements?? Come on. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule.

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

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

LD

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

PF

Extemp Debate

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

This is my third year as a judge. I have judged LD, PF, IPDA and Congress both at local tournaments and at Nationals . I try to focus on the speaker and only take key notes. I like to see the speaker talk to the judges and not the podium (scanning all the judges, try not to focus on one judge). Be passionate about your topics. I am not to concerned with time. If you run over a few seconds I would rather you finish the sentence than stop talking abruptly.

I have just started debating so I do not have much experience.

I expect very little as a judge.

All I ask is that people remain respectful to each other, and speak as clear as possible.

I am a lay judge.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop. I've been saying for a couple years now that I cannot physical handle the top debaters speed any longer. I will not backflow or flow from doc. This is an oral activity so adjust. I am very expressive in round and you should have no issue discerning if I am with you or not. For me it is definitely that my pen times needs more time, so look periodically and you should be fine.

Speed

The older I get the more triggered I find I am when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it outspread your opponent then I am not your ideal judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time.

If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Lincoln Douglas

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good, skep, determinism you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I cannot seem to get my paradigm to format properly on Tabroom, so the brief rundown if below, but here's the full break down for LD and Policy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them/he/him

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (15 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow tags and internal warrants. I only flow author names if there’s nothing else to write down, so don't just rely on 'surname extensions' with zero warranting to get you through the round. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the person that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check evidence, but I will almost never flow from it during your speech.

• Speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Also, slow it down a bit when online, especially if you have a bad mic.

LD

K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

Performance: 10 out of 10

LARP/plan-focus: 9 out of 10

T/theory: 8.5

Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

Tricks: 0 out of 10

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

Speed in person: 9/10

Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I look first to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

Hello Speakers,

I look for the following element in your speech.

1. Clear communication, speak at a regular pace, don't speak fast, confident body gesture

2. Explain your framework, value, and value criterion, why your framework is better and set up your contention around the framework.

3. Persuasiveness of speech, support your argument with data

Thank you

Benny Hu

I am a coach (Washington) with most of my skills and training in speech. My high school event (Oregon and Montana) was oratory and interps. When it comes to debate, I am not as experienced though I have been judging it regularly at smaller local tournaments. I have been coaching for over 5 years and attended nationals 3 times. I did judge Big Questions at nationals one year.

I prefer traditional LD and a conversational speaking pace. This is a values debate so you should focus on convincing me that your value is more applicable and that your criterion uphold it better than the opponents. It isn't about how many points you win, but winning the most important ones. If you can show that your side also upholds your opponents value- even better.

Coming from the speech side of things, I appreciate clear roadmaps and organization and speaking skills. Make me want to keep listening (or at least not want to stop). You can have a personality.

I am not a fan of tricks or trying to make it so there's nothing your opponent can really argue against. I want to see both sides being able to bring good ideas and counter things their opponents says. I want this to be a tough decision. Respect your opponents and me and have fun.

My paradigm addresses two central elements: civility and common good versus individual rights scenarios.

1. I'd like a revoltingly civil round please. Refrain from interruptions, name-calling, eye-rolling, and terse or inflammatory language. My bias is that incivility cripples any debate in an instant and squelches the learning and knowledge-sharing that can be gained from civil discourse. It ceases to be a debate with the introduction of incivility.
2. If you present an argument that favors individual rights, I'd like to see a mention of how it may or may not impact the common good , and vice versa - an argument focusing on the common good should have a consideration of any impact on individual rights.

I'm a parent of a debater. Assume that I don't know much.

I did high school debate, mostly LD, and I was decent. And I did some high school coaching on a volunteer basis. But that was a long time ago. For the past couple of decades I've been completely out of the world of debate. I think the most fundamental aspects of debate are probably pretty stable over time, but jargon and trendy arguments are always changing and evolving. So that's why I'd advise not making any assumptions about my debate knowledge. You can, however, count on me to be an enthusiastic, engaged, open-minded judge -- and one who is relatively fast on the uptake when things are explained. Explaining things (giving the "why") and doing this better than your opponent is likely to give you an edge.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have not trained my ear for spreading. And if I don't understand you, it will be as if you never said it.

I'd like to think of myself as an extremely objective, impartial, blank-slate debate judge open to any argument, but we are all probably much more anchored by our experience and world-view than we want to admit. So here's where I'm coming from: I'm a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. To me, debate is argument, and argument, fundamentally, is reason-giving. So I will strive to vote on the flow, but I am likely to reward debaters for being smart, and don't expect me to be swayed by undeveloped blips. Clarity matters a lot. I very much care about courtesy/decorum/civility and don't like rudeness.

(In writing this up, I benefitted from looking at, and borrowed some words and phrases from, the paradigms of Josh Zive and Victor Jih -- two people I think very highly of.)

(He/Him)

Lindale HS (2017-2021)

North Texas (2021-Present)

Assistant Coach at Coppell HS

If you are a senior and graduating this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you!

Add me to the email chain zachjdebate@gmail.com

TL;DR

I am good for any substantive style of debate that you partake in, I have experience both debating and judging high-level policy, clash of civs, and K v K debates. Not as great for theory debates, particularly the proliferation of them in high school LD but am more than able to evaluate those debates should they be necessary, just slow down a bit on these. I have a slight preference for kritikal debates. Aff's do not need to defend the resolution or the USFG but should have a topic link. I lean affirmative on Condo in HSLD, can go either way in policy.

For Prefs (Ranked from top to bottom)

Clash - 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Phil - 4

Trad - 4

Theory - 4 (I refuse to believe this exists as an argument preference for people but I've known LDers in my time who called it their argument of choice so I figured I'd put it here)

Tricks - 5

My Experience:

I did policy at Lindale high school in the middle of nowhere East Texas, I competed in both traditional (Texas UIL) and national (TOC) circuits in policy and just about everything in between. At the University of North Texas, I compete in NFA-LD which is one-man policy debate where our team has largely focused on the kritik. I have experience reading both policy and kritikal arguments both on the affirmative and the negative. I am slightly less informed about Post Modernism than I am about other sects of critical theory but beyond that blind spot I have likely ran and voted on any number of arguments in your repertoire. Do what you do best, and don't change your general strategy for me, just be ethical and all will be okay

Individuals who have shaped the way I view debates: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, Rory McKenzie, Cody Gustafson.

I flow on my laptop and would say I am about a 7/10 when it comes to speed compared to other circuit judges, just slow down a bit in dense and quick theory debates.

My general opinions I have about debate are the following:

Affirmatives should be tangentially related to the topic (I can be persuaded otherwise) but that doesn't require the reading of a plan or an endorsement of the USFG (I can be persuaded otherwise). I think that I probably have a slight bias affirmative in debates over T-USFG, but my judging record may reflect differently, as I believe that on balance negative teams are better at debating T-USFG

Counterplan theory, PICS are definitely good, most CPs are good, but I heavily lean affirmative on conditions, international fiat, consult, and object fiat. Though if these debates exist in the literature I can definitely be persuaded that these debates are educational. it's largely a question of the quality of the solvency advocate here. I enjoy a good theory debate as long as teams actively clash here, too often I see teams just reading generic 2NC/1NR condo shells and then moving on without answering the 2ACs shell.

Conditionality is bad in HSLD, though I can be persuaded otherwise of course. I don't have a preference in policy.

Topicality is not a voting issue in it of itself, 2NRs need to win an impact. A 2NR on T does not need to spend their entire time here, but your speech on T should include a clear link story and terminal impact. Simply being non-topical is not a reason to vote the team down, non-topicality as a link to the aff necessarily creating a model of debate that leads to "x" terminal impact is a reason to vote the team down.

0% Risk is possible

Speech times are non-negotiables.

Speaks start at 28 — your decisions can either add or subtract from that baseline. I shouldn't have to mention this but bigotry is clearly a loss and 0 speaks,

HS LD, I am bad for tricks debates and phil debates, obviously willing to adjudicate them but have next to no experience with these debates or the literature in phil debates. I will likely never vote for an RVI on principle, something absurd would need to happen for me to vote for one.

If you have any other, more specific questions just ask me before the round :)

Hi, I am parent judge and I relatively new to judging debate, so please keep that in mind throughout the round. I expect debaters to keep their own time.

Please send me your cases at knnmbd@yahoo.com, it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.

I'm okay with speed, but keep in mind I can only write so fast.

I don't flow cross, but this is where you will earn high speaks.

Keep calm, carry on, and remember to have fun.

Hi!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and confidently in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Please send me your cases atshyla.kannambadi@gmail.com, it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.

Thank You.

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging!

I don't know how much this matters, but I've done debate for 8 years now, had 9 career TOC bids in LD in high school, broke at the TOC, championed a college policy tournament, and coached several debaters who earned bids. I have extensive experience competing in and judging traditional rounds both locally and nationally, and I've also judged over 200 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments. I now work in real estate, film/tv production, and I'm a writer.

UPDATE for NSDA:

I don't care if you spread or speak slow, so you do you but please just slow down on tags. The easier you make the round for me to evaluate, the happier I will be!

I'm willing to give you a 30 if you read a really well-researched aff or have a strong defense of a K, but I'm also tryna be pretty generous with speaks anyways. I'm comfy evaluating pretty much anything you read as long as it's not disrespectful/bigoted/blatantly offensive, etc. (state good is fine, oppression good is not) and I enjoy creativity + well-researched args!

I like RFD's. I think they're a valuable tool for education and for you to challenge judges/hold us accountable. I'll disclose and give an oral RFD if you are willing to listen/if there's time (I like to write them out too tho, so you will see them on tab hopefully/I can email them to you or your coaches if you would prefer)!! And feel free to push me on anything or ask questions! This is about you, not me -- and I don't take it personally but I know that y'all get a W/L, so don't hold back if you feel some type of way.

TLDR:

I don't care if you read tricks, friv theory, K's, policy, etc. -- but I do care for warrants, weighing, and interesting args so have fun and do u -- I have a pretty good amount of experience with every style and form of debate in LD and policy, so feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with. My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfortability evaluating a certain argument.

You do you and I'll do my best — I don't care what you read as long as you win it and you're not actively violent. I'll aim to be as tab as I can -- I appreciate judge instruction, clarity > speed, and clear framing -- but regardless, tech > truth and I will vote for whoever has the cleanest route to the ballot/whoever I have to do less work for.

I also am trying to be super generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution will get you a 29.5-30!

Please give me trigger/content warnings

Go to the bottom for stuff about speaks and some random shtuff I care about (also influences speaks tho)

Pref Shortcuts:

K, Performance, Planless, etc.: 1

Plans, CP's, DA's, etc.: 1-2

Tricks, Friv Theory, etc.: 2-3

Topicality, Kritikal Theory, etc.: 1

Normative Phil/Framework: 1-2

Lay (LD): 4-5/strike

General:

My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I am more than willing to vote on impact turns, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I default comparative worlds, but tech > truth. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity. I don’t see myself really reading through evidence or revisiting your docs to find args — it’s your job to do that work for me.

I love impacting, weighing, and warranting -- don't just say "neolib" or yell "ontology" and move on because you think I will vote for you since I was a K debater -- do the work for me because I will drop you and hate intervening to fill gaps.

Specific Stuff:

For Policy/CX Debate:

There's not a lot I think I really need to say -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I judged a bid round/up to early elims at tourneys, coached some policy debaters in the past, and I'm pretty familiar with both policy and K lit -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against non-T aff's -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions (except when it comes to accessibility and safety in rounds) -- so you do you and go ham (within reason of course).

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I have a somewhat high threshhold for warrants regardless of what you read (at least, compared to what I've seen other folx grant) -- meaning, you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain without intervening to do work for you. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts.

I think framing is important -- doesn't mean you have to win util or a ROTB, but just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me. I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations (I love IR). I think 2 condo CP's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Kantian Ethics, and have experience with Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, and Social Contract Theories. I've read and/or defended all of these, but never studied them in-depth and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshhold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't vote on Kant is racist, unless someone proves that his theory is and does the work of proving the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but you can't just end it at Kant is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is not ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks (i.e., Farr 02 lol).

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a way for the affirmative to win a no link argument or prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary -- at which point, the Kant is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

Tricks:

I don't mind if you read these -- read a fair share of them myself (good samaritan paradox, a priori's, k tricks, etc.) and went for them too, coached debaters who read them, and have judged many rounds that came down to tricks.

I like creativity and think this can be a very fun style of debate to judge -- I find it often easier to resolve than other rounds, but that is all up to how you choose to go for them -- I will comfortably vote on tricks when they're impacted out and you explain the ballot story to me.

I think people could be more creative with these -- I wanna see a nailbomb K tricks aff or something else fresh -- and they are quite easy to write a ballot story with for me because they require mostly just an explanation of the argument, a warrant, and some impact analysis that explains why it's a voting issue/is sufficient for the ballot.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to disclosure to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (look at the bottom of my paradigm for more on that) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me -- the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshhold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Impact turns are not RVI's and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too (i.e., when they rely on warrants in the aff and you're reading arguments on T/theory for why you couldn't engage those warrants, granting the impact turn doesn't make sense in this case and seems to supercharge the abuse story) -- however you deal with it, deal with it.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most k aff’s that I hit my senior year, both just defend the topic and framework itself, and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my last topic too. However, I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think having either offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive and useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on both sides of this issue and I love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best and worst rounds. However, I am here for it.

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me that I should determine the topic by conventional grammar rules in a language that has been so deeply tied to colonialism -- I don't think this means I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why Nebel is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on that argument. That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating. I’m most comfortable with identity politics, especially Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Studies, Queer Theory, Queer of Color Studies, Asian Studies, and Performance Studies. If there’s a high theory k or some other area of literature that you enjoy reading or want to try out — go for it. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the k, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that.

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your k tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory absent some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them almost every round for 5 years now, I coached them for 2 years now, and I've debated/judged them for that whole time as well -- I got you LOL. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it.

Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I did read and go for presumption against a lot of these aff’s, but I prefer these to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do NOT read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. I will definitely hold you to a higher threshold. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got u. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args though — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal CX strategies when employed well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real, flashing lights are a no-no, and I would like to be warned, if possible. In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't, I won't be happy and your coaches/school won't be happy.

Speaks:

I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
2. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
3. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
4. I will try to average a 29, but to be continued

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness against black folx will prolly lose in front of me
2. Please please slow down on tags and give me something to differentiate between args (i.e., “and”)
3. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want, but I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
4. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I personally have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better and I'll boost speaks
5. Evidence ethics is actually quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- that means I have very low tolerance for lack of citations (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, and the date it was published), clipping, and more
6. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, but try your best and I understand — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways
7. Trigger and content warnings are important to me as an educator in the activity, but also as a participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- (this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally)

Please email speech docs to: mei4judge@gmail.com

TLDR; Flay judge; did policy debate at the national level back in college (this was a REALLY long time ago), so treat me as somebody who mostly has no idea what you are talking about, I'm not up to date on the current policy meta.

General:

Tech>truth, tabula rasa until you're racist/sexist/homophobic/personally offensive in any way, in which case I will instantly drop you with the lowest speaks possible. Defense is not sticky, weighing in the 2AR is imperative, make sure you extend arguments made in the AC/NC clearly across the flow and signpost well so I can flow you, especially if you're speaking fast. Tell me why cards actually matter instead of just throwing around their names in rebuttal. Trad>circuit debate, give me voters in the NR/2AR, I will try to remain as noninterventionist as possible and eval based off the flow. I look for you to creatively extend your contentions and CPs and think out of the box in your 1AR/2AR, 2NRs, those are interesting for me.

Prog arguments:

I hate speed, I'm not the best flower and I'll probably drop some of your arguments if you spread. I strongly dislike/don't really understand k affs, kritiks, friv t, and non-topical arguments. Avoid tricks as I wouldn't know what hit me and won't vote you up or down for them.

VC/phil debate:

Go for it. Phil debate is an integral part of LD. I default util in the absence of any framing, but if one side offers framing and the other side does not, I'll evaluate based off of framing presented. Just make sure to keep it understandable and don't throw singular cards from random philosophers around as a complete framework.

mark kivimaki- he/him pronouns - umnakdebate[at]gmail[dot]com

silliness and cowardice are voting issues

all formats:

1--i have an auditory processing disability and i need you to be very clear - you need to go at most 70% of what you think your top speed is. i won't flow off the doc. i will only evaluate the words that i hear come out of your mouth. i will clear you twice and then i'll close my flow and do my homework. speaks are capped at 27 if your spreading is unclear and you don't respond to clearing. speed has never been a problem for me, but clarity very much has -when choosing between the two, always choose clarity. speakers who slow down and use inflection will receive exceptional speaker points. i want to listen to communicators, not doc bots.

especially for LD, i wish that the debates I saw were happening at about 60% the speed that they do now. this is a win the debate thing. if you are explaining your arguments better than your opponent in a way that I can understand in a high level debate you almost certainly win.

2--i've been profoundly unimpressed and unpersuaded by most debates lately. too many teams shotgun blocks, stare at their computer for the entire speech, etc. monotone spreading and reading blocks is unpersuasive. make it interesting. debate with style.

3--marked doc = a document that shows where any marked cards were marked. if you want to ask which cards or analytics were read, you need to use cx for that - or better yet, flow!

4--i care very little about the content of the arguments you read. i like impact calculus and judge instruction. articulate and justify your vision of how i should evaluate the debate and execute on the line by line and i will do my best to follow. for transparency's sake: i read a performance aff and pretty much exclusively go for ks on the neg. i am far more comfortable evaluating a kvk or kvpolicy round than a policy throwdown. that being said, i've done policy-style argumentation in the past and i spend a lot of time doing policy-oriented research for my students.

5--don't want to hear content warning theory except in the most egregious cases where the material is objectively upsetting (i.e. SA, suicide, graphic depictions of violence). i understand that this might be an arbitrary brightline, but i think the direction that content warnings in debate are taking is incredibly concerning. “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” do not need content warnings, and to suggest so is trivializing.

6--evidence ethics and clipping violations stop the round - they are not issues that get to be debated out. clipping accusations need recorded proof. i will go by tournament rules for assessing evidence ethics violations.

7--cx is an important speech. i flow it.

8--these are some paradigms i generally agree with: katya ehresman, jayanne forrest, lily guizatoullina, spencer anderson-mcelligott

policy:

1--i'm a k guy - less of an ideological thing and more about my research interests. i haven't been in a policy v policy throwdown since high school so there's probably a better judge for you to have in the back for these. if somehow i find myself in the back of one of these rounds i'd recommend slowing it a bit down and making it simple for me. <3 judge instruction.

2--good for negative terrorism - i think negs should be less afraid to go for egregiously ridiculous negative strategies BUT you need to be able to defend what you did. i will default to kicking the counterplan / alternative for the negative if nobody instructs me on this issue. the 2ar is too late to start.

3--k aff v policy neg - fairness is probably an impact, but it might not be the most important one. impact calc is paramount in these debates and should start as early as possible. affs should pick a lane between impact turning and counter interps - i tend to think that impact turns are more strategic and make more sense to me. negs should answer case.

4--policy aff v k neg - the k needs to generate uniqueness for impacts somehow whether it be a framework or alternative. i won't arbitrarily use a middle ground interp that neither team instructed me to use. i also like ks that turn into impact turns by the 2nr. soft left affs are bad and more k teams should just take them up on the cp/da debate.

5--k v k debates - my fave. many teams neglect framework - it should be leveraged to implicate how i evaluate competition, links, and solvency. these debates provide teams a lot of leeway for explaining what my ballot does or what our research does and i think that answering these questions will behoove you.

6--policy aff v topicality - again because i am a k person i probably don't have the greatest pulse on the policy side of the topic and what affs are considered "core of the topic", so just be super clear with your explanation here. i care about intent to define / exclude.

lincoln douglas:

1--phil is cool. i probably understood your stuff in high school but every year i grow more removed from this type of debate so just do explanation and don't assume i know anything.

2--frivolous theory - i don't care about it. if you read "shoes bad" or something of the sort i will not flow it.

3--tricks - this is a terrible and unspecific categorization of arguments and i wish it would die. arguments like skep that substantively answer the proposition of the resolution are fair game. shotgunning 10 definitions or unwarranted paradoxes will make me stop flowing. finally, be aware of your positionality in these debates - i.e. skep against a performance aff will probably be an L.

I believe that a good debate should consist of fair, logical, and followable argumentation.

Please debate in a manner that would be understandable to a general audience and speak in a way that can be easily followed. A little bit of speed when reading evidence is understandable, but please keep the argumentation and analysis of key evidence points at a normal speaking pace. Assertiveness and respect is favored over aggressiveness.

Overall, a clean, fair debate is the objective.

Gordon Krauss

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Debated at Claremont, 2019-2021

Coaching for Peninsula, 2021-Present

General

I have lots of biases. I will decide debates technically, but I think it's helpful to know how I think about debates. For that reason, this is relatively long and hopefully somewhat informative.

Please have the email ready to send before start time.

Answer arguments in the order they are presented. Number arguments whenever possible.

Arguments need warrants in the speech they were introduced. I'll be willing to ignore new arguments entirely if something is said about it or if they are introduced in the 2AR.

If debating is relatively equal, I will read cards to decide who has a better argument that is consistent with the explanations given in the final rebuttals. Sometimes I will read cards regardless, especially if instructed to do so.

Policy

I most enjoy policy arguments that are supported by recent, high-quality evidence. I think zero-risk is incredibly unlikely, unless a team makes an argument that is incoherent (e.g. bill passed).

My favorite debates involve big advantage counterplans paired with a DA or impact turn, but I also admire neg teams that defend the squo. If the aff claims that the counterplan links to the net benefit, and the neg points out that it links less, I will probably agree with the neg. Of course, whether or not the counterplan does link less is up for debate.

I like impact turns, including ones that seem absurd, as long as you are not impact turning extinction or death. I have decided I will hear out any argument, but you probably won't win saying death is good.

Against process counterplans, I am more persuaded by perm do cp with reasons that interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good. I could be persuaded by limited intrinsicness if supported by an argument that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive, but function alone is equally winnable. Textual competition alone is an obvious disaster. The implication of counterplans must be textually AND functionally competitive is that permutations can be either textually or functionally intrinsic, but not both.

Aff teams will benefit from replacing pre-written overviews and theory with contextual impact/evidence comparison and lots of cards.

Theory

Go for a reverse voting issue and I'll give reverse speaker points (30 = 1, 26 = 4, 28.5 = 2.5, etc.) It's also impossible to win.

If you're neg, please consider a disadvantage instead! This also applies to anything labeled a trick.

I don't think that the 1AR is hard. You're making it harder when the justification for every theory argument is that x argument skews your time.

International fiat: Bad. The neg can fiat functionally infinite actors, and any combination of them, to do whatever the neg wants them to. This makes generating deficits essentially impossible and is magnified when the neg fiats multiple actors. The best aff interpretation would probably depend on the topic, given 'USFG' is not in every resolution.

Process: Maybe bad. You would need a much better interpretation than 'process CPs bad' but most that are read are questionably legitimate. They almost certainly don't compete, see policy section.

Solvency Advocates: I understand the concern, but as read it's almost always unclear what counts as a solvency advocate. If the counterplan is vague and not supported by evidence, I would be more persuaded by a deficit (regardless of whether or not you have evidence) than a theory argument about solvency advocates.

RANT: These are obviously reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I will reject the team for PICs bad, international fiat, etc. if and only if the 1AR says I should and the 2NR says nothing at all.

Conditionality: Usually good. The 2NR needs to do impact calculus, and actually play defense to aff arguments. The aff should give reasons why they need straight turns against CPs. The number has never mattered to me, because I care far more about why the neg should be stuck with straight turns than the 1AR being difficult.

Topicality

I don't love judging topicality debates, but I judge them a lot. I tend to agree with the aff, but I probably vote neg more. The neg needs evidence that explicitly defines a word in the resolution. If the word the neg is defining is in the plan text, the neg must present an alternative to plan text in a vacuum in the 2NR. The aff needs to win that they meet that interpretation or say theirs is better.

If it's about grammar, and not the definition of a word/phrase, please read something else.

I think predictability matters more than debatability, but requires some external impact or I will find it difficult to differentiate between the two. I tend to think that trying to make the topic as small as possible usually results in an interpretation that no reasonable person could predict. I could also be persuaded by overlimiting arguments, and both sides should have a case-list to substantiate their limits arguments.

Reasonability means that the aff can win if their interpretation solves a sufficient amount of neg offense for the substance lost to outweigh the marginal difference between the two interpretations. It does not mean anything if the 2AR is we meet.

K

I'm a fan when they indict core 1AC assumptions and include lots of re-highlightings, evidence indicts, and smart tricks. I'm not a fan when it's the fiat K or there isn't a link.

I'm most familiar with different variations of security/capitalism but also pretty good for the K against soft-left affirmatives.

The best framework interpretation is that the aff gets to compare the consequences of the plan against critiques of their assumptions. I will probably be persuaded by the interpretation that is closest to this. I find 'K's bad' and 'don't weigh the case' equally bad, but I will hear them out. Arguments must be complete and consistent throughout speeches. It's not as easy to explain why the aff's epistemology or representations are bad and what we should do instead, but it does increase your chances of winning tremendously.

Agreeing that the aff can weigh the case means the neg needs a turns case/alt solves the case argument, an existential impact, and/or substantial defense to the case. If the neg does have this, I will be confused if the affs only answer is extinction outweighs. The aff should focus on winning a permutation and alt fails argument, or impact turn the K.

T-Framework

aff: If you aren't reading a plan, you should be prepared to explain why topicality is bad. I find that hard to understand when the 1AR proliferates short, very similar DAs to topicality; identify the impacts or internal links that you're turning and play defense to the others. Counter interp is usually irrelevant because it's arbitrary and unlimiting, but if you're interpretation is grounded in evidence that defines words in the resolution, or explained as only providing uniqueness for your stuff, I can be convinced that it matters.

neg: I'm better for fairness than clash, but either is fine. Defense is important, and the 2NR should pick a couple arguments and explain them in the context of aff offense. I can be convinced that debate is broadly capable of producing some sort of subjectivity shift but I can also be convinced that a single debate is not capable of changing subjectivities, or that the neg accesses it better.

I'd probably enjoy a K v K debate. That said, I think I'm bad for the neg because the aff gets to perm and the neg needs a link.

Philosophy

I am not the biggest fan of philosophy arguments and I have done very little reading. If your philosophy isn't tricks and is supported by evidence and examples, I should be mediocre. However, if you do not treat me like I know nothing, you may be disappointed with the decision. I follow traditional framework debates much better than dense philosophy being read on the national circuit because the framework is explained like I'm clueless and no one drops (dis)advantages.

I vote for extinction outweighs against philosophy positions often and I think it's a good argument, especially when supported by arguments about epistemic modesty or humility.

Misc.

Insert re-highlighting if it comes from the original card. If you're reading sections of the article that are not in the original card, read it.

Add-ons are probably theoretically legitimate. 2NR cards are allowed, but usually only important when they directly answer 1AR arguments.

A marked doc does not mean deleting the cards you didn't read. Please minimize dead time and start cross-ex immediately after the speech ends, even if you need a marked doc. There is no waiting until it's sent.

Ask questions or post-round if you'd like.

Hello, I am a parent judge with no formal experience judging LD. Please speak clearly (do not spread), and if I can't understand your arguments, it's not going to be evaluated. Minimize use of abbreviations (instead of aff, say affirmative, instead of util, say utilitarianism). Please keep your own times. Do not run any Ks, Ts, tricks, or DAs with crazy impact scenarios. If you want the best evaluation from me, the round needs to be kept very traditional. Weighing the values and the arguments under the values will likely be the best route to the ballot.

I tend to prefer reason and logic for arguments instead of emotion and empathy. Good luck to all competitors!

nsdas i don't hold any particular ideological loyalty to this tournament. you can read whatever you want

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have recently come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the circuit section if you're interested in more specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

*Sorry I know this is super long, but I figured it’s better to be comprehensive than not. Control F if you’re looking for something specific. ALSO ctrl f for accessibility requests, they’re at the bottom

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them). I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I currently coach LD at Hawken. I have worked for a handful of camps, primarily VBI. ALSO i'm admin of the HSLD FB group which you should join because it's a really good thing even tho fb sux

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain pls & thx - i probably rely on the doc more than most judges on the circuit but i promise i'm listening enough to catch extemped stuff, stuff you skip, etc. i think docs are a good practice even if you aren't spreading but i won't force a lay debater to send them

• Email me or message me on Facebook if you have questions before the round or after. I’ll pretty much always answer.

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

General

• tech > truth, but debaters make that hard sometimes. Make sure your paths to the ballot are extremely clear, don’t be offensive or blatantly make stuff up, and I will make a tech decision

• One of my biggest priorities as a judge is round safety. I have made interventionist decisions based on conduct in round and I’ll do it again if I have to, so don’t be offensive or a jerk. My threshold for this is mostly a gut feeling, so just be nice and avoid it entirely :) If you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete? (more on this in the trad v. circuit section)

Circuit

Read whatever you want but I don’t judge or coach circuit all that much. so maybe give me slower overviews/judge instructions. Speed is fine but probably go like 75% speed max if you're spreading in front of me esp if it's something particularly complex cuz otherwise I will miss a lot and that's bad for everyone involved. Idc much about adaptation argument wise but I’ll only be able to understand what you’re saying if it’s clear enough to flow

• Policy/LARP: all good for this - obviously comfortable with the basics, less confident on your cheaty counterplans but they're still all good.Innovative positions are cool but I’m fine with extremely stock arguments if that’s what you have to read to have good evidence. I want to see good, quality evidence that actually says what you say it does, well warranted scenarios, etc, etc. I’m fine with extinction impacts/extinction first stuff but winning extinction first doesn’t mean your links can suck or you don’t have to do any weighing/risk analysis to win the extinction scenario

• Kritiks: Fine for the K, judged a lot of k rounds, voted for the K many a time. I find a lot of Ks to be underdeveloped and would really prefer if the position was actually explained and contextualized. your alt should be well explained and pls do not make it something in the 2n it wasn't in the 1n. if you’re reading something super obscure or complex pls slow down and actually explain what you’re on about. I’ll vote for a non-t aff but you need to have a good reason why no tva. I'll also vote off performance but it needs to be clear how exactly i'm meant to evaluate the performance. I also think a lot of k debaters need to get better at extending/explaining the substantive content in the k as opposed to just blippy extensions. Don’t really like high theory but you can go for it as long as you explain it, I’ve voted for it before. i am beginning to think a lot of k affs try to win off of only rhetoric but no, actually, spending 2+ minutes extending the aff in the 1a is actually not a very good strategy in most scenarios :/

• Theory/T: probably the thing that I have changed my mind on the most recently - i kinda like theory these days. Still haven’t judged all that many theory rounds so treat the shell like an ELI5 post and slow it down esp if you don’t send stuff (pls at least send interps though - even just in the text of an email is fine.) I don't think i'm particularly dogmatic on theory, so read whatever u want. friv is fine, will vote on it if u win it, it'll probably make me kinda happy tbh (tho prob avoid reading stuff about clothing and such unless you're like friends with ur opponent and know they're cool with it or something like that)

• Phil: Surprisingly, these are some of my least favorite rounds to judge. I find them really blippy, super fast, and never actually very in depth or instructional :( that being said, i’ve judged and voted off of phil before so you can still read it. I’m a philosophy major so I can usually pick up what you’re putting down. My philosophy knowledge is primarily in modern analytic moral/political theory but I've read some continental stuff. I’d rather see a well fleshed out theory from your fw as opposed to a million tricks and please slow it down

• Tricks: i sure do love voting for them (not really being sarcastic here - i've voted for tricky stuff many times and i'm actually pretty sure every time i've sat recently has been for tricks...) i like them because they're usually kinda funny and everyone seems to think "this is dumb" is a sufficient response (which itusually isn't) which means it's really ez to vote in these rounds

• IVIs: felt the need to add this in because apparently they're contentious. i'm cool for independent voters and quite frankly i wish you all would actually go for them more - the number of rounds where i've seen one read, the next speech drop it, and the final speech not go for it is severely depressing. however, being independent of a particular framing does not mean these should be independent of warrants - i need to know why it should be a voter

Traditional

• In terms of traditional judges, I’m super tech. I like the big picture debate, but it is often meaningless to me if you have not done a good job with the technical aspects of the round. Make sure that you are interacting on that level.

• Traditional debaters should weigh more pls weigh.

• I like the framework debate! I’m very familiar with most of the philosophy/frameworks in trad, so I’ll be able to pick up whatever you put down. But I am also really tired of seeing bad framework debates in traditional. For example:

• The value debate does not matter. I can't think of a single round in my time in debate where this has not been true.

• If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they’re like “my framework is rights” but it’s clearly just util.

• Make sure you are explicitly weighing under your framing/whatever framing is being used in the round.

• “They don't achieve their fw” is not a response to the fw. “My fw is a prerequisite” is almost never explained and I usually cannot figure out a single reason why it matters or is true.

• Traditional debaters too often get away with making arguments that are racist, sexist, etc. Do not make offensive arguments or use offensive language. You’ll be unhappy with your speaks and maybe with the outcome of the round.

• I hold the same beliefs about traditional debate as Lawrence Zhou, if you want to give his paradigm a read

Trad v. Circuit

• I think circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. Yes, I understand they chose to come to this tournament. I understand they can just read the speech docs. I understand all of your excuses for still spreading multiple offs against trad kids. But that doesn’t really mean I’m sympathetic to those excuses. I won’t drop circuit debaters for this unless it is egregiously bad (like if you make a lay novice cry or something) but I will be really annoyed and maybe tank your speaks. If you have an especially good/nice adaptation practice for a trad debater, I might bump your speaks a bit.

• On the other hand, (experienced-ish) trad kids who still read anti-spreading against LARP debaters going at like 50-60% speed should probably just spend their time actually engaging with the args. Don’t think I’ll vote for you just for traditional solidarity or something, I usually find myself voting circuit in these rounds because traditional debaters blatantly refuse to engage.
  
  

random debate beliefs

• I won’t extend stuff for you — I hate extensions in the 2ar you didn’t do in the 1ar (how thorough your extensions need to be for me to be happy about them depends on the press; if the 1n was easy to deal with then your 1ar should extend pretty thoroughly for instance,) brand new stuff in the 2n/2a are things I will rarely evaluate without good reason, etc, etc.

• Unwarranted arguments aren’t arguments and I think it is your obligation to not miscut your evidence or powertag it. if something sounds sus to me when u read it and i look at the doc and it is indeed really sus i probably will not evaluate it. I care deeply about evidence quality, so please just read good evidence and don’t misrepresent stuff

• similarly to the previous point, I really care about evidence ethics - powertagging/mistagging, miscutting, terrible quals, etc. are things that really irk me. probably won't drop you for it unless your opponent says i should, but it's possible in a close round i just won't evaluate your bad evidence even if you get to cleanly extend it. if you notice your opponent has bad evidence, point it out and i'll be happy. relatedly, rehighlighting is good

• send analytics in doc pls you all make me so sad

Non-substance FAQ

• Don’t call me “judge,” that’s weird. Pls just call me by my first name. If you use my name in round I’ll bump you up .1 speaks, because it makes sure I'm paying attention. It’s pronounced with a long E (think wall-e), not “Ava”

• I don’t disclose speaks sorry. I’ve come to realize I’m a really low scorer but I’m trying to work on it. i WILL evaluate theory that tells me how i should score the round bc i think speaks are pretty nonsense and would love for you to just decide for me :D

• I like when rounds are relaxed/informal/funny. If you really make me laugh I will bump your speaks

• I don’t care if you stand, I don’t care what you wear, I don’t care if you swear, etc.

• I consider myself to be a mid to bad flower and i flow on paper. if you're clear i should be cool, but if i look confused/i'm not writing anything, probably slow it down for a few seconds at least

accessibility:

• please do not send me docs with dark highlighting - yellow is optimal, after that it’s green>blue and anything else is unreadable. Please bold text you are reading especially if the highlight color isn’t yellow. I’m sorry if this is annoying for you but if I end up needing to reference docs it’s gonna be extremely difficult to do so if you don’t listen to this, I have a lot of vision issues

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm, suicide, and violence against queer/trans ppl. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

She/Her

Hey yall!! I'm lila!!

Email Chain: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is [ask me before the round starts]. If you have any questions or revolutionary criticisms of my paradigm, I would love for you to email me as well!! ^^ To keep my paradigm as short as possible, I have also omitted my thoughts on how I evaluate specific positions (i.e Ks, theory, ADV/DAs, etc). So if you have any questions about that, feel free to email me or find me before prep/the round/etc!!

Quick Pref Sheet:

1 - K

2/3 - LARP

3/4 - Theory (I am good at evaluating theory and went for it all the time when I was competing, vacuous debate just makes me mad).

4/5 - Phil

10 - Tricks (ill just never vote on this).

Paradigm - Short:

• Tech > truth.
• Go as fast as you want, i'll be able to flow it.
• I judge every debate format in the same way: on the flow and based on (in one way or another) which team or debater wins offense that outweighs their opponents.
• I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc.
• Barring the above, read whatever you want and i'll vote on it if you win it!!

Paradigm - Long:

Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. Meaning, arguments/positions which defend the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship (monopoly capitalism and thus imperialism), from a right-wing political form. I.e., the politics, ideology, and practice of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie.

Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc. In the context of a debate round, by default this will function through 'drop the argument.' I.e., if you read an advantage or DA that represents the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, I won't evaluate that advantage or DA. If your whole 1AC or 1NC strategy is rightest capitalist-imperialist in nature, I won't evaluate your whole 1AC or 1NC. This only becomes 'drop the debater' if you violently and egregiously defend counterrevolution.

For example, if the arc of your argument is about how Afghanistan can never be self-reliant and is inherently 'full of terrorists' (thus requiring US imperialist rule), you will lose regardless of what happens on the flow. The brightline for what I described above is liberalism. Or in other words, I will still evaluate 'soft left' positions/arguments - those which represent the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. To be clear, this is not because liberalism is any less counterrevolutionary or less of a weapon of monopoly capitalism than rightism is. Nor is this the modern revisionist nonsense which posits that there is a 'peaceful' wing of the bourgeoisie and thus imperialism.

Rather, it's because it's a practical necessity given debate's class basis. In one way or another, given debate's bourgeois class basis and function as imperialist propaganda, the vast majority of 1ACs/1NCs are liberal in some form; this includes the vast majority of Ks. Thus, if I were to extend this paradigm to correctly also cease evaluating liberal arguments/positions, it would mean either it would be impossible for me to evaluate 99% of rounds or there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise.

So within that context, as much as I can, I will use my power as a judge to propagate the Maoist line and remove as much of the most explicit reactionary arguments/positions as possible. As Aly put it, "some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary." I know that there are going to some individuals who are greatly upset by this paradigm. For the vast majority of you, thats fine, the class antagonism is clear. For the rest of you, whose concerns may be genuine, consider the following.

Every single judge exerts a paradigm that, to differing degrees, will not evaluate particular arguments/positions. Most judges do not explicitly state or justify what that entails, and many judges do explicitly as well - in both positive and negative ways. For example, many judges (correctly) will not vote for openly racist/cissexist/misogynistic/nationally oppressive arguments; it goes without saying, but I won't ever vote for and will drop you for these arguments as well. Or in another way, (incorrectly) debate conservatives refuse to vote for Ks all the time.

The only reason this specific paradigm will seem especially concerning, is because of the bourgeois class nature of debate and thus its' ideological function in service of imperialism. One which is inherently in contradiction to proletarian revolution and human emancipation, and thus antagonistic to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is demonstrated well by the contradiction that most judges correctly will vote down debaters for being openly racist, yet will vote for positions which endorse the butchering of colonized and nationally oppressed People by US imperialist wars; something ive been guilty of in the past. As always, if you have any questions or good-faith criticisms of anything I mentioned within my paradigm, please don't hesitate to email me - I will always get back to you as soon as I can!! :))

Proletarians of all countries, unite!!

Misc Thoughts:

• Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/ Note: don't use this as an opportunistic excuse to not defend or have a line on New Afrikan national liberation, as thats gross and chauvinist.
• I am a transgender woman who has a deeper voice, please take that into account. It's exhausting to see judges and debaters who are unable to resolve this contradiction, either attribute my RFD to men on the panel, or treat me like a man as a result of my voice.
• Cap debaters need to stop reading modern revisionism or 'left' opportunism guising itself as 'Marxism,' and truly grasp what Marxism is. This is a good place to start study wise: https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Collected-Works-of-The-Communist-Party-of-Peru-Volume-2-1988-1990.pdf
• It's a real shame that as a result of bourgeois feminism, be that white feminism or cissexist feminism, debaters have abandoned advancing the necessity of women's liberation. The proletarian line on feminism needs to be brought to debate, here is a good place to start study wise: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S02-Philosophical-Trends-in-the-Feminist-Movement-9th-Printing.pdf
• For Parli Only - I will NEVER vote for an argument that says "reading Ks is only for rich schools and only rich debaters read Ks." There is a reason why this argument is read 99% of the time by schools and debaters flush with capital, it's because it's a bourgeois lie and distortion of debate history. Particularly one which, among many things, enables and was enabled by white chauvinism in debate. There is a good chance I will drop you for making this argument as well, so either don't read it in front of me or better yet strike me.
• While their are certainly contexts in which trigger warnings are legitimately necessary, i.e in graphic descriptions or displays of counterrevolutionary violence (sexual or otherwise), there are also ways in which trigger warnings are weaponized by bourgeois politics for counterrevolution. I.e., how it's used to obscure or mystify ongoing exploitation and thus oppression, or to protect bourgeois sensibilities. Merely discussing the existence of counterrevolutionary violence DOES NOT require a trigger warning, that is absurd and nothing but liberalism. If this occurs in a round that I am judging you in, I am very receptive to revolutionary criticisms of this liberalism. As Black Like Mao puts it "it is important to steel oneself because real life has no trigger warnings. This is not a call to willfully subject oneself to a constant barrage of horrors, because that is a recipe for depression and all kinds of other nasties, but a reminder that this stuff is happening and if you happen to be in the midst of one of these incidents there is no running away or covering one’s eyes."
• Given events that happened during the 2022 Stephen Stewart finals, I now have a very specific threshold for voting on Speed Bad theory. That threshold being that unless you have disclosed to your opponents that you have an audio-processing disability and/or show me your flows (your lack of ability to flow the arguments being spread), I will not vote on Speed Bad theory. The way this will function on the technical level is that if that threshold is not met, or another threshold which objectively not subjectively proves engagement was not possible (because of speed), I will grant the other team a we-meet on the interp - regardless of what happens on the flow. To be clear, this is not because I don't think that there are legitimate justifications of Speed Bad theory or that teams don't abuse speed in reactionary ways, there are and they do. But rather, it's because this interp has and continues to be used in an actively counterrevolutionary way. I.e., to advance monopoly capitalist and thus imperialist propaganda, and justify blatant male chauvinist harassment. This does not apply to novices.

I am an experienced parent judge (lay style, not circuit style).

I started judging in Jan 2022. Please minimize excessive spreading.

My email address for sending evidence and cases is joe_lee@yahoo.com

I am new to the world of LD and do not have much judging experience. English is my primary language but I'm unfamiliar with many debate terms. I have trouble understanding spreading when trying to follow arguments. Favor sensible reasoning rather than arguments that lead to nuclear war.

LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.

I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).

PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.

Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.

Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.

Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Debate experience: debated at the University of North Texas 2015-2017

My general philosophy and approach to debate is that education is A-priori. If your arguments are educational I'll buy them. Ask any clarifying questions before the round.

Rating scale - 1 being the lowest possible score with 10 representing the highest

(8 out of 10) Speed - Just be clear on the tags, don't clip cards

(6 out of 10) Topicality - I generally don't vote for T arguments unless it is under covered, dropped, but I will entertain it.

(10 out of 10) Disads and CPs - I will vote for any DA or CP. Multiple conditional counterplans are ok but don't go overboard and read more than 2 or 3.

(10 out of 10) Theory and F/W - I enjoy these arguments and will vote for just about any theory and framework argument.

(9 out of 10) Kritiks - Ill vote for any K, spend enough time covering the alternative.

(10 out of 10) Performance debate - I spent most of my career doing performance and K aff's, these are my favorite debate rounds to judge.

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!????

I am an experienced coach and judge in all events, debate and speech, on our local and state circuits as well as on the national circuit. I have traveled nationally and coached at summer camps in the past in both Congress and PF. I am a full flow judge in all debate events, and yes Congress is a debate event! I will judge based off the flow, but, imo, for PF/LD/CX, quantity is not king. The best debaters demonstrate strong analytical skills and know how to collapse, weigh, and justify effectively in favor of their side of the flow.

I'll deal with Congressional Debate first because it's a little shorter. I've extensively coached on local, state, and national levels and have had finalists and top 6 placers at all levels, including co-coaching a national champion. I tend to prefer circuit style Congressional Debate. I want to see good debate and will reward that much more heavily than any deductions for a few speaking blips. Good word choice and smooth speaking are important, just relatively slightly less important than really debating. If you have to choose a slight tradeoff between delivery and debating, my preference is to prioritize debate. I prefer a rapid delivery pace, but not definitely not policy speed. I do have a sense of humor and definitely enjoy tastefully humorous styles, as long as they maintain the decorum and respect of the chamber and subjects of the debate. I understand and appreciate various types of speeches within a round, including the fact that you may want to give an authorship/sponsorship for various reasons. However, my expectation is that if you hope for a higher rank from me you will demonstrate how well you are able to speak late in the round (i.e. refutations and crystallizations). I likely can't rank you if you give the first or second speech on every bill repeatedly, no matter how beautifully you may speak. I am a fan of POs. Many of my best Congressional debaters have been excellent POs. I say this with the understanding that anyone who runs to PO can preside very EFFECTIVELY and EFFICIENTLY. If you are presiding, dispense with anything that wastes speaking time and get right down to it, recognizing speakers and questioners as quickly as possible without mistakes or extra language. This may sound strange, but the less I hear or see you as PO, while the chamber is running quickly through speeches, the higher I will want to rank you. Finally, please don't rehash or waste the chamber's time with unnecessary parli games. If the debate is getting repetitive, please PQ the bill and move on, I will not think you're rude for calling the question, even if speakers are on the floor when the debate quality is poor.

OK - ON TO PF/LD - I am very flexible when it comes to rate of speaking. You can speak as fast as your mouth can move while maintaining solid enunciation and intelligible speech. I can follow and flow national circuit style policy when I am coaching and judging policy, but PF and LD are not policy. Also, imo, many debaters believe they can speak much faster than they actually can/should/need to. Think carefully about the tradeoff between saying more words and choosing persuasive and effective words when you are considering your rate choices in the round. Often, the strongest debaters/teams are able to edge off extreme speed because of their analytical skills.

I prefer to see debates where there is some kind of clear framework for decision making presented at some point (hopefully the beginning/early on), and where weighing on that framework occurs effectively WITH reasoning behind why the mechanism and the flow on your side is appropriate/superior.

In my mind, ultimately, the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and logic is more important than raw facts/evidence. PLEASE, PLEASE, do not simply keep repeating "my __ card" or rely on "my card says so" in round. You MUST be able to explain the logic of your evidence and understand how your source has arrived at whatever conclusion you are presenting as your cut card. Without the logic, cards have pretty much zero value in round (unless your opponent has the same problem in their debating and then I guess I get to decide which cards I like better?). Also, while I value quality of evidence over sheer quantity, my expectation at circuit tournament debates is that every team who seeks to win rounds will also have a high quantity of evidence and demonstrate the logical basis and connection to that quantity of evidence.

Please make sure to present your version of how the debate is going by the end of the round. I do want to hear, iyo, what the key voters are, why they are the keys, and why you have presented superior arguments/evidence/analysis/etc. to advance your offensive attacks over theirs.

For crossfires, I really detest debaters/teams that (1) seek to speak every moment and try to prevent others from speaking (if you ask a question you MUST give them a chance to answer without cutting them off every two seconds) (2) provide the longest, most tangential, or most evasive answers possible to "kill time" (please get to the point) (3) can't stand up to reasonable questioning and crossfire strategies that seek to point out inconsistencies or lack of information. Please allow for time sharing within the crossfire period, maintain dignity, and, if you ask a question, you must let your opponent answer the question without immediately cutting them off (unless they're being obtuse or obstructive).

I absolutely detest debaters who do the thing where they shake or nod heads, or make gestures or movements or eye rolling, etc. while the opponent or partner is speaking to try to reinforce or negate what is being said at that moment. It's really distracting and annoying. You're not helping yourself by drawing attention to yourself in this negative way.

I am not opposed to answering any other questions prior to the round, as it is likely I've forgotten to address some issue you may have in mind.

Yes, I may call for your evidence at the end of a round if it is hotly contested, vital to the round, or suspect in some way.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate, and have coached/judged PF & LD coach for 2 years.

I keep a thorough flow: cards, whether a piece of evidence is a study or rhetorical, etc. I won't extend arguments / impact drops unless you point them out, or if there's no objective way to decide the round without my doing so. Please give last name and year.

Key voting issues aren't 100% necessary, but I prefer if you give them just as a method of directly communicating the issues that really mattered; that said, I won't ignore other argument extensions that aren't mentioned in those voting issues if you brought them up in the line-by-line. If you do provide KVIs, try to avoid simply mashing every single point in the round into them.

Framework debate will play a large role in deciding the round. Tell me which framework I'm looking at (and it's perfectly fine to just concede to your opponent's standard), and why your position best achieves it. You can win almost all of the points in the round, but if they don't link to the standard, then they don't matter.

Your framework attacks should be substantiated issues with their framing / why their standard lacks something that makes yours preferable, not just quick statements you throw at every criterion that you don't recognize.

I make an effort to avoid judge intervention, unless the framework debate is a wash or nothing links to it. The debaters have to show me what standard I should decide the round upon, so if they fail to, all I can really do is piece something together on my own intuition.

For the debate nerds so they'll stop yelling at me. Speech events paradigm coming soon.

Lincoln Douglas

Speed: Conversational Pace; Fast pace is fine if you are understandable; spreading should be forbidden. No one can understand what you’re saying normally therefore no one knows what your arguments are, so there’s no way you can prove your side or engage with your opponent on a meaningful level. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Case Structure: all your points should be connected by logos, ethos should only support the contentions you propose, and logos should be the rope that holds your case together, pathos is only necessary for an intro, conclusion, and impacts

Refutation: You should rely on mainly logic to refute your opponent, but if you use a “block” you need to tell me why the evidence is better than what your opponent provided

Closing Speech: Whether you use voter issues or world comparison doesn’t matter. I’m familiar with both strategies in closing and have personally used both. The main thing that matters is that you are clear and tell me why you win according to the voting issues, or how your world is the ideal.

PSA: Make sure to address the value in the round. This format is not policy though some would like it to be, which means we aren’t debating on practicality entirely, but rather on what we should value more as a society.

Public Forum

Speed: Conversational Pace; Fast pace is fine if you are understandable; spreading should be forbidden. No one can understand what you’re saying normally therefore no one knows what your arguments are, so there’s no way you can prove your side or engage with your opponent on a meaningful level. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Case Structure: all your points should be connected by logos, ethos should only support the contentions you propose, and logos should be the rope that holds your case together, pathos is only necessary for an intro, conclusion, and impacts

Refutation: You should rely on mainly logic to refute your opponent, but if you use a “block” you need to tell me why the evidence is better than what your opponent provided

Closing Speech: Whether you use voter issues or world comparison doesn’t matter. I’m familiar with both strategies in closing and have personally used both. The main thing that matters is that you are clear and tell me why you win according to the voting issues, or how your world is the ideal.

PSA: The framework is what matters the most. If you don’t engage at that level, you’re going to be arguing past each other the entire round. The framework can either be a policy or a metaethical system so long as you can argue for why it should be the framework for the round and topic.

I have over twenty years experience working for the NC Department of Public Safety. I teach a Law and Justice elective at Cuthbertson HS. I enjoyed working in the criminal court system and appreciate those of you that have the skills to make good oral arguments. I place a value on respecting other opinions and proper decorum. It is much harder to make a good point about an unpopular opinion, therefore I take notice the level of difficulty. Lastly, I feel it is very important to be able to adapt to the current debate.

I am an experienced PF and Policy Judge, I can handle above average speed and enjoy respective clash.

I am a parent judge, so please do not spread under any circumstance, and speak clearly. 

Make sure you signpost and give me an off the time roadmap. 

Thanks!

Topshelf -

Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.

Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.

Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.

The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long

I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.

Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

Nats Attendee.

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

I am a parent judge. Please weigh between arguments and collapse in the later rebuttals. Please use SpeechDrop to send your cases. No spreading please and speak clearly. It's preferrable if you keep your own time.

I am former high school LD debater but have not judged debate in over 25 years, so consider me a lay judge.

Although I can follow spreading, I prefer traditional debate without spreading

I prefer truth over tech

I expect you to keep your own time.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Public Forum -

I am a former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined reasons for decision in the third and fourth speeches.

I am a flow judge. I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

hook me on the chain jimi.morales@gmail.com

the news should inform your positions.

my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you are running ironic positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally.

run a framework and explain what it means, otherwise you leave it up to me or your opponent to make one up.

I'm listening to cross-x and you should reference it in your speeches.

ask me specific questions and I will happily answer them.

I will not use the speech doc to flow, you should be intelligible without me needing to read over evidence as you are saying it to understand the content.

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging the debate.  Here are the items I try looking for

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

• are they having fun and enjoying the competition? 

I am also learning from both teams debating  as a Judge 

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) that has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn my ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point key words as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

Public Forum debate notes: The comments below are written with policy in mind. But the principles apply. I would suggest reading the whole thing but specifically the parts on qualification of evidence, education and accessibility. What I hear and record by hand on my flow sheet is the official transcript of the debate.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Overtime shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qaulified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

I will be flowing. Please speak clearly and be respectful to your opponent. I enjoy off-time roadmaps and being able to get an idea of the structure of your argument.

This is my first season doing LD judging, sorry participants, and I am trying to become a better judge with every tournament. The following are my recommendations for debaters that I am judging

1. If you are going to spread, send me your case to carlos@aerocadmfg.com, and go at 70 mph and not 100. In my opinion if the audience can't follow your case, that is a problem.
2. If you are going to do progressive, make sure that you explain very clearly how your case relates to the topic; and you still need to address your opponents case.
3. If you drop arguments to focus on critical points, communicate that and I will judge if you did address the key items.
4. Flow and structure are just as important as your main value.

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in speech and debate. This summary should be succinct and to the point in order provide a guide or framework on how I typically judge participants.

  My experience: I’ve participated in congress and policy debate. My judging history has been congress, Lincoln-Douglas, PF, and Policy.   Speaking: Please ensure you speak clearly even if you are spreading or speed reading. If it’s not spoken, I will not be able to understand or weigh the item into the decision making process.   Decision process: It is the burden of the affirmative to carry without a reasonable doubt as to why your the winner. However, this does not mean that the negative can simply use one simple or anecdotal hole to throw out the entire case. I like to weigh the options presuming the burdens have been met.   Etiquette: Please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker points.   Thank you and best of luck!

(currently being revised. Whatever you see here should still apply though)

Lincoln-Douglas

My general approach to LD:

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but I don't necessarily like it. An articulate speaker--one who prioritizes clarity, signposts, and doesn't spread--is the best speaker to me. This activity is supposed to improve your communication skills, giving you something to carry forward for the rest of your life. I cannot think of a field that rewards blurting out long strings of research at light speed.

Flex Prep: No.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your framework is better than your opponent's. If you give me reasons why you win in NR or 2AR (which I encourage you to do), please tie them back to your framework whenever possible.

Philosophy:

Theory Arguments: I don't enjoy voting on theory, but don't be afraid to use theory if there is legitimate abuse in a round. Be very clear in your explanation if you use a theory argument.

Kritiks: I don't have that much experience with K's, but I do find them interesting. ROTB arguments probably won't persuade me. An interesting, well-developed post-fiat K could.

Evidence Challenges: Challenges must be made in good faith and as soon as possible. Evidence challenges are all or none. If you prove evidence to be materially altered or made-up, your opponent will lose. If the evidence has not been materially altered and is verifiable, you will lose.

CX:

- I'm fine with both relaxed and assertive styles of cross. Please avoid the extremes: don't be so quiet that your opponent runs you over, and don't be overly assertive to the point where you become aggressive or mean. I'm not going to vote based on something in cross unless you make a note of it in a rebuttal speech.

Misc.:

- I value creativity (≠ absurdity). I prefer the original to the cookie-cutter in many circumstances.

- Talk TO me; don't talk AT me.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

[last updated 4-27-23]

I competed in NFA-LD (which is like shorter one person policy) at WKU for two years. I also competed in college parli (NPDA) for three years. I finished top 8 at NFA and was the 2023 PKD LD national champion. I have been coaching MS/HS debate for a couple years, but I never competed in high school myself.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain).

TLDR: Slow down a little if its not in the doc, make sure you HAVE a doc, I'm fine with theory and the K. Lay debate is also ok.

PF Only (Scroll down if you're doing something else):

1 - I have the expectation that both debaters are on the same page about what kind of debate they'll be having. If you want to be really fast and really technical that's fine, as long as your opponent is okay with that. I will vote on speed bad.

2 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easy way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other.

3 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few stipulations around tech in PF: Firstly, PF is a lay event. The norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will lose even to awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF, largely because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a competitive counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

Other Events:

How do you feel about speed?

On carded stuff/analytics in the doc I have a higher threshold for speed, if its not in the doc slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.. You don't need to guess, I will slow you if you're too fast for me. I won't drop you or get mad at you for being too fast but I also won't pretend to have stuff written down that I don't have written down.

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.

Disclosure

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading.

Substance

I really don't buy consult or delay counter-plans. You can read them, just know the perm solves for me 99.99% of the time.

Disad and counter plan debate is cool, I enjoy watching it. I like a good advantage counter plan.

K

I like and will vote on Ks, but I won't pretend to understand an alt I don't get.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. I do need you to win T, and as a default T FW comes before the aff.

T

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't care. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education).

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read.

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

Updated 5/1/23 for the National Tournament in Phoenix, Arizona

IE competitors

I'm always extremely grateful to have the opportunity to judge IEs. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the creativity, thought, passion, and commitment actors and public speakers demonstrate in these events. I leave every round having learned something important and most often being deeply moved.

I am open to all types of pieces and focus on the thought, creativity, and authenticity you bring to your performance.

I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited. BTW as a former extemper I have a particular respect and admiration for all who compete in this event.

Debate

I evaluate all public speaking, performance and debate through the lens of Aristotelian rhetoric and evaluate these public speaking activities utilizing the Aristotelian triangle in an effort to determine truth and justice. Like Aristotle I condemn all those who engage in sophistry.

I am looking forward to your warrant based argumentation presented at a conversational pace as I consider LD a public speaking event.

I will be the most traditional and old-fashioned LD judge you will encounter. I ballot based upon first framework, second quality of argumentation which includes a link to your framework and clarity in your analysis of reasonable effects. I reject on their face all extinction impacts. You can anticipate that my remarks on your ballot will clearly outline my view of your ethos, pathos, logos and the effectiveness of the Aristotelian triangle in your pursuit of truth and justice. Evidence of sophistry in your case or analysis will be condemned as I outline other reasons for your loss in my RFD.

Pet peeves: flow this point. I am maintaining a flow and as this is not policy debate if you do not weigh the arguments I will. As a long time community judge I have found that debaters who focus on a single argument as opposed to a laundry list tend to earn my ballot. I never ballot for analysis that ends with a laundry list of supposedly dropped arguments. I look for you to weigh the arguments that were made in the round.

I evaluate extemp based upon the clarity and specificity of analysis of the assigned topic, the appropriate integration of evidence to support analysis, and an organization that leads to a clearly supported conclusion.

Summary of expectations

Do not spread

No plans, counterplans or Kritik

LD is values debate not policy

Weigh the round! It you don't I have to.

Warrant (evidence is not a warrant)

Not all impacts need be extinction

Quality > Quantity

Ethical Debate!!!

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

For Last Chance Qual:

Debate stock, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not at 300 wpm.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for Last Chance, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan@colorado.edu. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. In general I prefer traditional PF, but I'll listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:
1. If it's not going somewhere on the flow probably don't say it. Don't waste too much time in overview, I just want to hear line by line.

2. Time yourself, I'll forget.

3. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

4. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. Extinction impacts are difficult for me to vote on if the links are iffy i.e. I generally vote on probability > magnitude.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this.

Lastly, be nice. Debate is meant to be fun and if I find you are abusive in some way I will dock points.

Hey Guys, thanks for checking out my paradigms. I have competed in congress, LD, World Schools, IPDA, PF and Parli (almost everything except policy cause I hate spreading). Because of the types of debates I have done, I am well versed in the different formats of debate and the rules of that debate style, so don't try and pull PF or Policy formats or rules into LD, I will notice and not be happy.

Big No Nos for me:

THIS IS NOT POLICY SO NO SPREADING. If you spread faster than I can type, I will stop flowing.

I will flow the Affs points as dropped if the Neg doesn't cover them in the first speech.

If you do not signpost, then good luck to you cause you're gonna have question marks on your flow and that's not good. Just include the "cross apply to my opponents 1st contention", takes 5 seconds and will make the decision for the round easier.

Concerning Debate etiquette:

- If you are inappropriate or disrespectful to you opponent, I will give them the win. I do not allow any forms of disrespect. I will not require the opponent to point it out, as soon as I see it, you will lose the ballot and the round will stop. I will reach out to your judge as well and let them know what you are doing in rounds and why you lost the ballot. So basically just be nice and you have nothing to be worried about. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN CX, like just don't be a butthead and all will be well.

- Debaters have a 5-8 second grace period to finish their sentence when their time is up. When the timer goes off, let your opponent finish, do not hold the timer to the mic and have the beeping go over them. Everyone has a timer and I can see when their time is up. If they go over, I will deduct points but if you hold a timer to the mic, I will count you down on speaker points. If this is a repeated behavior, you will lose the ballot. I am very serious about this.

Concerning anything else:

- When calling abuse, you better have a darn good reason. While in some cases calling abuse it valid, this is debate, so do just that.

Good reasons to call abuse:

False or exaggerated evidence:

Do not lie or exaggerate your evidence. If you call abuse on evidence, use your prep time to have the opponent send the card to me and if you have the same card (that says differently than what you opponent is saying about that same card) email me that as well. (email:sarahardin03@gmail.com)

Impossible Burdens:

You just have to really prove that its unfair and depending on what you say and the frame of the debate, I will decide if it's an unfair burden.

How I give speaks:

29+: Fantastic

28-29: Really good speaker

27-28: Better than average, but can improve in some areas

26-27: Average speaker

I am a first time parent judge. Assume I know nothing about your topic.

Considering that, as well as the fact that this is an online tournament, please go slowly. Do not read K's or theory. Otherwise, feel free to read whatever positions you are comfortable with as long as you are confident you can convincingly explain it to someone with no prior knowledge. I will vote on technicalities (arguments that go conceded) whether or not they are true, but you need to point it out and implicate it in the round. Give me a clear ballot story. I value persuasive speaking.Keep your own time! I'm a judge, not your timekeeper.

Speaking points: I will deduct points for disorganization and being inconsiderate.

Pronouns: She/her

Hi everyone (: I was a Speech and Debate competitor throughout high school. I mostly focused on LD and Extemp but have also participated in other events as well.

LD: I am more on the traditional side when it comes to LD however, I will not automatically vote you down for presenting a progressive case… Just do it well. LD is a philosophical/values debate, if you choose to go progressive that’s fine but I will not vote off of how many cards you can show me in a speech. I expect both debaters to present a well explained value/criterion, tell me why I should buy your framework over your opponents and be sure to carry out your value criterion throughout the whole case. Your contentions must show how you are proving your framework, that being said, just make sure you're wrapping up your case nicely for me and why it would be a mistake not to vote for you.

My next thing is voters. TELL ME WHY YOU WON. especially on the neg, make your last speech count. When you can tell me what to vote on and what arguments/impacts I should be taking into consideration the most, it definitely tells me as a judge that 1) you understood what happened in the debate and 2) you're taking advantage of the last minutes you have to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Lastly, facts and evidence are important, but execution of facts/evidence are of greater importance. You could be a top debater but if you’re spreading your heart out you risk the chance of me missing some rather important things you may bring up during the debate. So please, DO NOT SPREAD. Especially when online it’s important that both your judge and opponent can understand you clearly. Spreading will also cause you to run the risk of losing speaker points.

I will not tolerate any disrespect throughout the debate, you will take an L for it.

From San Jose CA. My son is active in debate and I've judged speech and debate competitions for 3+ years. I work in the technology industry in strategy, operations, and managing programs.

Speed- I prefer elucidation and clarity to speed.

I like fewer more well developed points versus lots of varied but weaker arguments.

I dislike rude behavior, verbal or through gestures.

I really enjoy the creativity that teams bring to their debate topics and the diligence they bring to the preparation.

I am available from 8 am to 12 pm.

I am a new judge.

I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: hitesh_rastogi@hotmail.com These are my preferences:

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.

In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.

Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Enjoy yourself

I am an experienced parent judge. English is not my first language. Please speak slowly and clearly!I will not understand spreading and I am not used to progressive arguments.

Last updated - 3/10/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: garlanddebatedocs@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I participated in policy debate in high school (back when it was the National Forensic League) and college (CEDA).

I have judged LD as a "parent judge" since 2020.

I believe the purpose of debate is to learn the art of effective oral advocacy. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best persuade a judge that you do not know much about. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best reach a panel of judges with a variety of debate experiences and backgrounds.

I do not necessarily mind speed/spreading if it is comprehensible. Slurring out incomprehensible syllables does not count.

Counterplans, theory, etc., are not off limits. Still, they need to be persuasive. If you want to argue Thanos Was Right, be my guest and give it a try, but remember that I gave up my Saturday to volunteer to listen to this.

My most frequent ballot or post-round observation of where debaters sometimes fall short is failing to use final rebuttal to crystallize the round and give me of why I should vote FOR YOU. You should be able to boil it down to a succinct "elevator pitch" I will remember of why I should vote for you. Telling me why I should vote AGAINST THE OTHER SIDE is not the same thing. I want to vote FOR something, not just that the other side dropped your so-and-so card and I have to extend it across.

Rudeness, excessive cockiness, etc., are not persuasive and will not be tolerated.

At the end of the day, I want debaters to have fun, learn about the world's pressing problems, and learn something about themselves along the way.

No off the clock roadmaps, your time begins when you start speaking.

Don't tell me you are going to begin, we all know why we are in the room. Just read the room, and start speaking.

Clear organization and signposts are important.

I have been a debate coach for the last few yeara.  I am experienced in both LD and PF.  I prefer a conversational pace as opposed to spreading.  You can easily speak so quickly that the merits of your arguments can go unnoticed.  Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitor.  

I don't have many paradigms. I simply ask that:

1) Be respectful of one another.

2) Do not spread. I find this to be unfair to your opponent and it doesn't allow for a proper debate.

Hi Everyone. I am an experienced parent judge, and know how to take general notes and as long as you send a doc, that is well formatted, you can probably get away with talking a little faster. As for my general preferences.

1. YOU ARE IN A LAY ROUND! Thus I expect you to utilize delivery and external persuasive techniques. The winner isn't who can win the most arguments, its the one who wins the most impactful argument and can present it in a way that shows its impact. Thus not only explaining what the voters are, but why those must be the voter is very important.

2. CX is very important. This is the only time in the debate round where you can directly engage with you opponent, so use it. This is the time you show me how your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about, by asking strategic questions and replying strategically. Considering all this, it is never okay to be rude to your opponent or to make your opponent feel uncomfortable.

3. Delivery. Like I said you can go slightly faster (not spreading), as long as you are clear. Clarity is key. This is reflected not only in whether you stutter or not, but also word choice and being able to explain a concept in a way that is easy to understand.

These are my general preference, and should give you an idea of how you want to structure your speeches. Note I am taking notes, not flowing, thus it would be great if you guys could adapt to these criterions, cause otherwise the lense at which you look the round from may be different than how I look at the round.

Hello Debaters:

I am very happy to serve as a Judge for this round. I am a novice Judge and very early on my Judging learning curve. Despite that, I will strive to provide the best service I can to you in my role as the Judge.

I will take into account the following aspects in my judging criteria: clear, well-articulated arguments involving without rapid speech, debate jargon or short forms so as not to handicap my comprehension of flow as novice judge and enabling me to provide the best service possible. Please ...

1. present clearly defined Value, Criterion and Contentions
2. present off-time roadmap at rebuttal
3. demonstrate structure / Flow of Argumentation

I will pay attention to Cx.

Clash is key. If you stand up and read a bunch of cards and don't directly address / clash with the opponent's values/contentions with specificity, my vote will be hard to achieve.

Please end with a summary of why your VALUE / CRITERION is the best supported and which arguments supported that.

Good Luck!!

Shailesh (Shay) Sheth

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am the Director of Debate at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I default techy truth>tech/truth. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. During the time of virtual tournaments, I am going to need for you to slow it down a bit. If you want to gradually get faster as the round goes, that is fine. I will say clear as often as I need. After coaching and judging debates, I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, mention that in the signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed argument to many. However, its your world. Just don't assume I got everything you said.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

Harvard Update

Tech Issues: Be sure to make a local recording of your speeches. If you disconnect, this will be the only way that I will evaluate the content of that speech. I find this to be the most equitable way to deal with this issue.

Theory: I am a firm believer in the power of theory to check abuse in debate. We need it. When done correctly it is truly one of my favorite arguments to evaluate in rounds. More often than not, they end in one side being called some ad hominem, then a cat fight about what happened in pre-round prep ensues. Sigh. So what I am going to do is set up how I evaluate theory, period. You have a shot at convincing me to evaluate it differently, but you will have to be very persuasive.

I default competing interpretations. I don't think that is too hard to do. If you have offense about how violating the interp means your opponent is racist, sexist, abelist. I am going to hold that interpretation to the ultimate degree. These type of accusations matter. We live in a society where these isms affect peoples lives. I do not deny the impact that they have in this debate space, as one of my favorite coaches likes to say, "I have the receipts". However PSAs addressed as Theory shells(and to the same degree Ks) do not warrant my ballot. As a result, ink based concessions do not replace work here. Show me how violating the interpretation leads to the voters you claim. I need this in theory debates! If we are going to discuss good norms for debate, I think that we shouldn't be disingenuous and claim that our norm is what black, queer, womxn, trans, people with disabilities, etc. NEED to make debate a safe place for them. There are quite a few structures that exist in debate that makes life hard for a lot of people, your shell will not solve it. If I don't feel as though following the interp resolves the voters, I am not voting on the shell, period. As the debater who introduces theory, you have the obligation to convince me that your interp is the norm we should follow. I am just not going to check in for conceded theory without a good ballot story anymore.

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 9 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I prefer not to disclose unless required or encouraged to do so by the tournament.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches

I also very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters, or when experienced debaters adapt to accommodate novices, or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt in this way.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions, rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you can provide sufficiently strong argumentation that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (topicality is non-negotiable in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that the Affirmative's definitions are correct (I cannot reject a definition without a better alternative).
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless the round is otherwise irresolvable. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided. To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. Similarly, incredibly dense philosophy doesn't belong in this event, nor do Ks.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for drops. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 250 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225 words per minute. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• If you spread against an opponent who does not spread, and low-point wins are allowed, 90% of the time your speaker points will be lower than your opponent's, even if I vote you up.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise something said in 2CX in the 2AR, I am going to treat it as a new argument and I will discount it. If the Aff wants something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should raise it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will defer to the majority on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondant from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCX, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be extraordinarily significant.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, best of luck!

Speech & Debate is an opportunity to engage in high-level discussion of relevant and real-world issues. Student presentations should take advantage of this, showcasing the depth of their research and knowledge.

Experience: High school ELA/English teacher - your prepared materials should be organized and well-written. I am also an active judge who has adjudicated for both Speech & Debate.

Speech

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Debate

All categories: Students are encouraged to time themselves, but I will keep track as well. I flow and take thorough notes; you may speak with speed if it suits you (spreading), but you must speak clearly. If I cannot keep track of the argument because you are cramming in too much, it will be at your expense.

LD: The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it thoroughly, and adequately addresses the opponent's claims. The best arguments may use a combination of theory/philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered and voting issues should be given at the end.

UCLA '24

tajsmyname@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years at Lovejoy High School, in Lucas, Texas.

General Things

- Pretty much nothing you can say or do will offend me. If an argument is awful, you should be able to easily beat it.

- I much prefer a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but you do you.

- Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

- Tech > Truth

- I don't keep up with topics so don't assume I know much about all topic-related jargon/acronyms.

- Try to mark your own cards.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

-------- email chain: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com --------

Hi there! My name's Zoe - I'm a private coach; previously I was a coach at SWSDI and a coach at Brophy. I debated LD for four years, attended nats 3 times, and now dabble in college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have after the round and I'd love to help!

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

Defaults-

any speed is fine

I'll disclose speaks if you ask

Flex prep fine

tech > truth

FW- util if nothing is read

comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

reasonability > competing interps

DTD < DTA

*****these can change easily if you explain to me why

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

Spec stuff: I'll analyze anything but for specific scoring

phil- 1

k- 2

da, plan, cp- 2

tricks- 2 (I don't mind as long as you warrant it--which could literally be a one sentence explanation--ask preround on any specifics)

theory- 4 (very high threshold, see below)

Fw- very important for me in lay. Please just collapse if the fw's are super similar (ie consequentialism vs util or social justice vs structural violence). The NC doesn't have to read fw if it's the same as the aff's. FW should be addressed in every speech--at the top, preferably

K- K’s are cool but I have a very high threshold for K affs. The K must have a link to the topic/debater/round. Running a nontopical K aff in front of me is not the best strategy unless done incredibly well. Topical Ks are fine by me if warranted properly. Make sure to explain the K if you’re reading a complex one. I mostly know foucault, anthropocentrism, set col, baudy, cap, fem, and queer myself but as long as you warrant it I can follow anything.

DA- Please don’t run 3+ DA’s in front of me just to win on substance. Run a couple well warranted ones if you want or a few short ones is fine

Plan- Plans are cool, especially a unique one. Make sure it's not nontopical and/or extratopical, that's a pet peeve of mine. Don't run a PIC as a plan on the aff please (ie Iron Dome CP from the LAWs topic but just on the aff).

CP- I’ve grown to dislike CPs because they are either a. A super common CP that everyone reads on this topic (ie UBI CP on the fjg topic) or B. Not well-warranted (which makes the CP feel like just another argument you’re throwing out for substance). Feel free to run a decent CP. Not a fan of PICs in most cases and will slant heavily aff if they read PICs bad theory. Multiple condo CPs will probably get a drop if its at all possible

Phil- Phil is awesome, literally anything in any form is cool

Theory- Very low tolerance for theory. What this means--I'll evaluate one or two legitimate shells but I don't want a theory-centered debate or frivolous (3+) shells. Only want to see it for valid abuse. If you read two theory shells in the 1nr and then just concede theory in the 2nr I will err heavily on aff if they even do a half decent job of answering anything or just say RVIs. Don't use theory as some strategic ploy, use it to legitimately uncover abuse (or like very obviously as a joke thrown in with actual argumentation as well).

Tricks- I think it's fine as long as I as the judge can determine what the tricks are and you actually tell me how to evaluate it, however blippy that explanation may be. Just give some semblance of a warrant in the rebuttal. Tricks don't need to be in the doc as long as they're restated and warranted in the rebuttal

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

General:

Not timing unless you ask me to

Sitting or standing doesn't matter

No new in the 2nr/2ar args please

No using rest of cross for prep

Make the round a nice experience for everyone involved. Be nice during cross, especially. I will tank speaks for blatant rudeness in any form in the round. (sarcasm differs from rudeness- the former I am fine with and enjoy)

PLEASE WEIGH IN YOUR LAST SPEECH. Show why your evidence/impact is better, use terms like magnitude and scope, it’ll make my ballot super easy. Weighing throughout the round is good but last speech like a good 30 second chunk should be impact weighing and framework analysis.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, reading cards is on prep

Sharing cases- you get a 5 min timer. If you're unable to post by then I'm taking it out of prep. Speech drop is simple, or I have my email in my paradigm. if you ask for my email I take off speaks

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Start at 26 speaks and go up from there, 25 for blatant rudeness, racism, etc. 30 if you get me any blended dutch rebel (gift card works too i suppose)

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

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I know how PF works and have tried it at a few tournaments. I think the main difference is that I look at framework more, so like you can read structural violence and I'll evaluate it but I default to util. I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, but if you happen to have me as your judge you could toy around with some progressive, it's just slightly bothersome if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff. Be warned that reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. please don't excessively talk over each other keep it at least a tad civil

- def/off aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or it's nonexistent in final focus

- no new arguments in final focus

- any of your other typical pf judge norms I'll follow if you ask me before

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

Policy- see LD paradigm. I know most of the caveats but not like extensively (like aff/neg burdens, time frames, solvency, inherency, harms, etc). ask any questions my LD paradigm doesn't cover

BQ-also refer to my LD/PF paradigm as you will. I did BQ before I can judge it. that's about it.

Congress-

- congressional debate doesn't denote the use of debate terminology like "extend" "outweigh" or "vote aff." if I hear these I'm dropping your speech/round ranks. I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. construction > content

- giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first. you have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well

- please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. at least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (it's very easy to fake a speech, c'mon).

- there is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. if you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. if it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. if you're a seasoned PO and don't do very well don't expect to make ranks

Email for document sharing/evidence chains: betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 14 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory with no actual clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash. Again, I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) I do not traditionally like Ks because I feel like there is always a performative contradiction. If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

Hi, I'm Grady!

I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.

I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.

I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.

I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or an Iron Maiden shirt. If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 25 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job is defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive. All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

First and foremost, I am a coach of a high school team. This means I judge based on how I expect my team to behave. Rudeness will cause me to score lower. This is applicable in both speech and debate. However, as long as you mind your manners in IEs, we’ll be okay. While debate can get heated, it should never get disrespectful. That said, I judge based on the following.

PF and LD - I place logic above all else. If your arguments aren’t logical and supported well, they will not flow. Additionally, you should have sufficient evidence to support your ideas. If you are throwing out arguments that aren't supported with evidence, they will be less likely to seem reasonable. I don’t flow CX. During this time, I am often writing feedback. Because this is not Policy, I will stop flowing if you decide to spread. Additionally, you shouldn’t be running counterplans or Ks as, again, this is not Policy. Otherwise, I am a pretty open judge who is just searching for logical arguments.

Congress - Congress should not be boring. If you are not careful, congress can quickly become "boring" or less engaging for your judge. That said, the way you speak matters. You should have logic and reasoning within your speeches, but you should also be engaging. As long as you are engaging and logical, you stand a strong chance.

Vamsi Velidandla Paradigm

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point, not just
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, send me an email and I’ll be more than happy to get back to you on those as soon as I can!

if you need clarification on a ballot OR IF I JUDGED one of your rounds and you didn't recieve ANY FEEDBACK (esp with virtual tournaments it happens since I flow externally and copy-paste) please send an email ASAP to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ] - I archive my ballots routinely!

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - if you don’t see specific comments in your individual section (due to round pace), look for three asterisks/ three eights like: [ ***or .888], I’ll post the entire flow with [ *** or .888 ] at the end of key arguments per speech. Flow Criticism will be in parentheses +&&&, looking like this (comment)&&&

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.

Debate- This is my second year judging. I am well informed and have done my homework so as to judge fairly and effectively.

-Speak with clarity and at a reasonable pace so that I can take notes.

-I look for effective presentation, organization and strong evidence.

Speech- Not judged too may tournaments but familiarizing myself with the various platforms of speech. I look for effective presentation, body language and facial expressions.

Best Wishes!!

I think that debate is the most fun and important educational activity in the world. I'm a former coach of a national circuit team which experienced a fair amount of success during my tenure. I have coached multiple teams who have appeared at the TOC in Policy Debate, including one TOC championship. I have also coached multiple teams to championships at the Middle School Nationals tournament in both PF and Policy debate.

I'm generally a "progressive" judge in the sense that I enjoy theory debates concerning what debate ought to be and how we can provide the best educational experience for competitors. I'm also happy to listen to criticisms and counterplans in those events which have not traditionally utilized those types of arguments.

I've been focusing more on my day job for the past few years and therefore haven't judged as many rounds during the last several seasons. Don't assume I know the jargon specific to this particular year or your particular case, even if it is a camp case. I'm generally good with jargon specific to debate and I can flow a fairly high degree of speed.

At the end of the day, have the debate you want to have, make it the best debate that you can show me, have fun, and I'll reward that.

P.S.: Please do your part to help keep the round running on time. I'll keep track of time just in case, but I'd rather that you not make me police speech & prep times.

Affiliation: Graduate Assistant @ Western Kentucky University

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

My primary role as your judge is to ensure that everyone has a safe and educational experience. I will not hesitate to drop any debater or team that creates an unsafe environment for others. Outside of that, have fun y'all!

As for experience, I did debate in Kansas for 6 years where I read traditional policy arguments. However, since leaving the activity for a couple years and coming back, I am more familiar with critical literature than I was while competing.

Overall, I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages; put simply, you win if the world you are advocating for is better than the other team's. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I never read affirmative kritiks while competing, so teams that read them in front of me may need to do a little bit more explaining so I better grasp your education model and arguments. I like topicality/framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaks.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I like "off the cuff" counterplans, like PICs, so I don't really need a solvency advocate. As for theory, I err negative on most arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on extremely abusive counterplans. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.

Conditionality: I generally think that hard debate is good debate and that affirmatives teams should be able to defend the 1AC from all angles

Speaks: Speaks do not explicitly come from logos; I view ethos and pathos as equally important when evaluating overall performance. My speaks range from 27-30, with 28.5 as the median.

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: I am a college student and this is my first year judging LD but I was a traditional LD debater for 4 years.

I will be flowing the entire round so if I am not looking up at you don't assume I am not listening. I will do my best to provide in-depth ballots for each debater to help you understand my decision.

Tech Problems: If anyone in the round cuts out or disconnects time stops and it will resume once everyone is reconnected.

Speed: I can handle speed but if you chose to spread, share your case to this email: nswilliams2022@gmail.com 

Also, if there is contentious evidence in round or if evidence is called for I want it sent to me at that same email or in the file drop. 

General debate comments:

I have only debated/judged traditional LD so cut me some slack if you chose to run circuit arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.). But as long as you flesh them out I should be able to follow.

Framework: State your value and value criterion at the top of your case. I find it easier to follow cases where I know what I am weighing each contention under. I love to see a clash between opposing frameworks! If you both just agree on util it boils down to impact weighing (not necessarily a bad thing but it feels more like PF than LD).

If you have a super obscure framework make sure to flesh it out well and tell me how to weigh under it! 

Rebuttals: Before each rebuttal please give me an off-time road map of how you will be going down the flow. I love line by line but don't let your line by line distract from the main points of the debate and the overall bigger picture. 

Cross Ex: BE POLITE. This doesn't mean you can't cut off your opponent if they are rambling and avoiding answering your question but just don't be condescending or rude. I will take away speaker points if you are being disrespectful to your opponent. Talking over each other in an online tournament isn't helpful for anyone (especially the judge). 

Last speeches: Give me key voting issues in your last speech or crystallization of the round. AFF, I would prefer if you didn't go line by line in your last speech unless you think it's extremely necessary. 

If you have any other questions about this paradigm or in general please ask them before the round!! 

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

Please put me on the email chain: jlfwillson@gmail.com

Updated 4/25/23

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a policy debater at the University of Wyoming. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance I deem problematic.

LD

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for two years in high school. I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. I have done work on the supreme court topic but you still need to be very clear in your argumentation and tell me warrants as to why I should vote for you. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted.

PF

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Ks

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I primarily run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts.

T

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated.

add me to the email chain - djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fourth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s.

For LD circuit debate - I have judged a lot of traditional LD, but I’m still getting used to circuit. It’s in your best interest to give me signposts - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. Make sure I know where you are in the flow. I prefer a slower debate style where I can at least distinguish the words you are speaking.

For Parliamentary Debate - I have judged Parli and will choose a winner based on which team best supports their side on the opinion. I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. I am tech over truth. There’s never a bad side of the motion. Argue what you’re comfortable with and make it an interesting round. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. You should tell me which issues are the most important and why you win those issues. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. I prefer no spreading. If you must spread, you should hope I can keep up. Use taglines, signposts, road maps - anything that helps me follow. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them. However, I am very flow judge and I will always be tech over truth.

2. Please be respectful to your opponent during cross. You’re debating, not bullying or belittling. You can be better than that. Your behavior will be reflected in your speaker points.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case) In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always still have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Good luck and have fun! Debate should be educational and fair.

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I have judged 4 tournaments before including finals rounds so I do have some experience.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Good luck and have fun!

I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.

Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!

LD DEBATERS: Send your case docs to mhyun.debate@gmail.com

About me:

• Parent judge
• Occasional judge
• Computer Science background
• English is my second language

Expectations:

• Do not spread. If I cannot follow you, I cannot increase points.
• Emphasize your points clearly.
• Use gestures and pauses purposely.
• Use quantitative data if you are delivering information.
• Use warrants to support your claims.
• Use simple and easy words.
• Avoid jargons. If you need to use, define it before or right after you use one.
• Be respectful to your audience and other speakers or debaters.

Remember the most important rule for all types of speeches (and writings): respect your audience. Tell them what they want to hear instead of what you want to tell. If you don't excite them, you may not get enough attention. Entertain them, educate them, and respect their time.

I am a traditional debate judge, not a progressive judge. Please speak clearly, and don't spread.