Hi! I'm Mattew (not a typo) Anazco. I did debate at Staples High School in Westport, CT, where I did 2 years of traditional Lincoln-Douglas for a local league program before coming to Harrison High School, New York. I was not an active member of Harrison's team, but I'm familiar with the fundamentals of debate.

I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides - otherwise, I won't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues, and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names. Real world examples and statistics are helpful.

if you post-round me and be mean to me i will cry on the spot

I love debate!!!!

for email chains: zooark038@gmail.com

HARVARD UPDATE:

• I haven't judged in a WHILE, please go like 60% speed or less or I will literally not be able to judge you... (which means you would probably lose). This is your only warning I won't say anything in round.
• Also please crystalize a lot and do more weighing than usual in the NR and 2AR, especially if there's a lot of layers so I don't have to weigh them myself and intervene.

My preferences for arguments are still basically the same, maybe treat me as a little more trad than usual since I haven't thought about Ks and Theory in like a year (or just explain them really well). Also still no Tricks...

Please include me in the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Thomas and I’m a second year out studying at BU. I debated for Harrison on the national circuit for 4 years.

Circuit people:

Strategic ≠ Good for debate. Get really good at line by line, not spreading through new 1AR spikes.

Tech>Truth (Except for the ”isms”: racism, sexism, homophobia, ect)

I err on 2 Condo Offs, RVIs good, 1AR theory depends on if you’re reading 20 new frivolous shells. (ofc I can be convinced of whatever in round)

Reasonability on messy violation stories ("oh I told you in person before round") and probably on IVIs (I need to agree to some extent they were violent to the space, don't treat IVI's like spikes)

Dos: Favs are DAs, CPs, Ks.

Anything that has a critical layer is something I find interesting, although sometimes tougher to vote on if articulated poorly (i’m not comfortable choosing between two ROBs if the debate is a wash). Like a critical DA or CP is so cool and I love evaluating critical offense.

Trad/Larpy ish is also something I “like”. That’s if I think it’s true. Like just take a step back with the big stick stuff and think “how stupid would I look if I explained this to a group of officials”. For example, I don’t want to vote for a position that says “one company catching less fish destabilizes the economy which leads to nuclear war”……..

Im also cool with performance. I’ve seen some really thought provoking ones and I think it’s a good educational norm. Make sure you explain how it has some type of topical link, or if not, argument for the ballot and justification for the rejection of the topic, otherwise I’m just rejecting or accepting your identity performance on face value which puts me in a weird position.

Eh: T and Theory. Like I think it matters in the debate space, but you know when you are running a stupid shell just to waste someone’s time. Frivolous theory will tank your speaks even if I end up having to vote on it. I don’t really like RVIs on T.

Don’ts: Tricks, Really Dense Phil, Being rude

Being non inclusive. For example if you’re hitting a trad debater, don’t read tricks. If I feel like someone’s being rude or reading a harmful argument, I will try my best to find a tech way to drop you, and obviously tank your speaks.

Reading phil is another big one. Some of these kids on the circuits understand tricks and dense phil in a way I don’t think my brain ever will (or a lot of kids act like they do). (HARVARD UPDATE PLEASE DON'T PUT ME THROUGH THIS) I somewhat understand some Kant, Beaudrillard and other popular authors in debate but if they are ran poorly (no collapsing and explaining) I don’t feel as confident weighing offense or giving you a good ballot.

Tricks is just, no. It just hurts debaters with less experience and/or backfiles. Like I do not enjoy hearing you collapse your 1NR on a single subpoint of an underview. Even if you squeeze a ballot out of me with these, your speaks will SUFFER.

Like 1. I’d rather be listening to more interesting things during the debate round. 2. If you get “screwed over” cuz I don’t understand the third sub point of your 22nd underview don’t post round me and say i didn’t warn you.

With all that being said- Except for those exceptions I will not intervene, in the round, even if I find something to be wrong or dumb. I’ll vote for anything you throw at me as long as you articulate a ballot for it.

weigh. collapse. paint my ballot for me.

See you in round :)

Trad people:

Hello, I love trad debate. Don’t try to read anything you don’t understand just to make me happy. I think with the right answers on case, a trad position can beat any position in debate.

Also, even if you don’t know what an argument you are going up against means, doesn’t mean it’s impossible to answer. Don’t let big words and lingo intimidate you, clarify what the argument really means under all the smoke your opponent will throw at you and i’m sure you will find some answers they could overlook.

With that being said, try to weigh between different impacts and scenarios. Also, chose certain arguments that you believe to be especially strong or maybe conceeded to make them key voting issues in the round. If the core of an argument was not responded to, I will not grant any new answers in later speeches.

Although you should flesh out your arguments, some trad debaters just repeat the main points of their case over and over again. Please try to engage in the other case as well, and respond to every argument they make, for conceding something, if extended properly may cost you the round.

Be nice :))))

See you in Round !

NOVICES

Overall I'm fine with all positions. Considering you are a novice do what you feel you are good at, please don't try to spread or read circuit arguments unless you know how to. Follow speech times and be respectful/nice to your opponents. Being annoying in cross x is not persuasive just answer the questions. If I think you are promoting harmful ideas in the debate space (I.E: Racism, Homophobia, ect.), I will drop you.

Please try to weigh impacts under each framework so I know what to vote for. Apart from the exception above I will not intervene in the decision. Even if I find an argument is stupid or wrong I will vote on it if it's not addressed by the other debater. Please give me a good framework debate, explain why their framework is wrong, not just that you preclude it. Otherwise claim, warrant and impacts are the way to go. I care about evidence ethics so try to have carded arguments on case.

Circuit People: Don't be mean to novices. If your opponent is reading a lay aff don't go 6 off reading theory and T. I agree with most of what Chetan Hertzig's paradigm says.

See you in round.

Don't spread. If you insist on it - at least make sure I can actually understand you. I consider myself a trad judge. Strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks. Be topical.

In the event that you have me as a judge and you really reallycan't help but read something not trad, please slow down, I do not want to follow a doc (though I am more than capable of doing so).

I don't disclose speaker points but I will disclose the result of the round.

frasatc@gmail.com - I want to be on the email chain! Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

I understand that I may be on panels with two circuit judges and the round will inevitably be a progressive LD round.

here is a list of circuit arguments I have voted off of

DAs (love these, basically circuit trad)

Ks (set col specific)

Determinism (I didn't want to vote on this either)

Rule following paradox (it was dropped, I do not want to vote on tricks :( )

Overall my "circuit" preferences are LARP (policy) and the K (identity K's think: set col)

If you slow down towards the end of your speech with some clear judge instruction (yes, even if you are spreading) I will figure it out--

Don't post round me- I voted the way I did and demanding I change it or concede that I was wrong is not productive for anyone.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 29 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and/or Senior Instructor for LD, PF, and WSD. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

My name is Tasneem (she/her). I debated in LD in high school. I am studying international relations. using speechdrop has worked well for me in the past.

First, have fun! Debate is for learning and meant to be enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress! Second, I want CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it. Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. Third, Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh. Fourth, Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss. Fifth, note that I am more comfortable with slower speeds. Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

please keep volume to a reasonable level (please do not yell) :)

A high school social studies teacher for 20 years, I am a relatively new debate coach. I have a little experience judging Lincoln-Douglas and policy debates.

Road mapping, with definitions, is helpful in making it clear what your arguments are. You should back your claims with warrants and cards from credible sources. I think it is most important that the teams respond to their opponent’s arguments. It is also important that you state your impacts clearly and that you effectively argue why your impacts matter more than your opponents’ do.

Please do not spread. I will not appreciate theory or Kritiks and would prefer that you keep debate jargon to a minimum.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

*I will never give higher speaks/a 30 based on a "give me 30 speaks" shell.

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

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 at shyla.kannambadi@gmail.com it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.

Thank You.

I'm a parent judge so following extremely fast speaking (spreading) will be a challenge for me. If possible, please make sure to state your contentions and sub-points slowly and clearly, or send me your speech documents.

I value both warrant and evidence. I would love to hear well-supported arguments with clear logical link chains and weigh impacts.

Please be respectful to one another - being rude, racist, or aggressive, will result in low speaker points and/or loss.

Good luck and enjoy!

First of all, thank you for all the hard work behind this.

Enjoy and learn from the process.

Respect your opponents.

Don't spread!

I expect you are very familiar with the material instead of just reading the doc.

I value comparison. So clearly tell me why your evidences outweigh the opponent's! Write my RFD in your last speech.

Hi, I am Elizabeth Miani. I am a lay parent judge.

I want to be on the email chain: elymiani@gmail.com and please camera on.
I expect debaters to send the 1AC before the round and then the 1NC after the first cross-examination. If you read new cards/evidence in rebuttal speeches, send it on the email chain before your speech.

I am fine evaluating whatever you want to present; just do not spread.

You are best off running a traditional case in front of me as that is what I have experience judging.

BE LOUD AND CLEAR AND SIGNPOST.

Remember, simplicity and clarity will go a long way in winning the round with me as your judge. Good luck!

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 1/8/25). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Hi, I'm Aaron Shao (He/Him). I'm a junior at Lexington High School and this is my third year doing LD. I compete on the local and national circuit.

Add me on the email chain: aaronshaodd@gmail.com

Quick Overview For Novices:

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches).

Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2AR.

Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.

Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well warranted/impacted arguments.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc. Don't be a jerk against a Novice, i.e. spreading like crazy, reading Ks/Theory/Tricks.

A note on complex arguments, its been a while since I've done any major debating so be sure to flesh out arguments and clearly explain links.

Thanks and have a good round!

______________

Theory

Theory is alright, and I sometimes read topicality and disclosure. I can remember my novice years when I depended on theory for rounds lol.

Phil

I understand basic phil arguments. If you're reading something more complex, clearly explain links and weighing though you're probably better off reading something else.

Tricks

I don't enjoy listening to tricks. Stacking tricks is pretty abusive.

Kritiks

I read these, kritiks are great. Extinction outweighs is a good argument, so you probably need k turns case, alt solves, etc. or else I'll probably vote for case outweighs. Like phil, I haven't read a lot of k literature so should be well explained. Good kritiks can be fun to listen to.

K affs

You can read a k aff if you want. I haven't read a lot of k literature so unless you want me to be confused, you're better off reading something else.

Policy

I also read these a lot. I'm very used to evaluating policy v policy debates.