UC Davis 2024

He/Him/His

Email Chain: tjbdebate@gmail.com

Online Debate

Please slow down on analytics. It is really hard sometimes to hear debates online so doing this is purely for your own benefit.

Qualifications

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I had 5 career bids and I participated in the 2020 eTOC. I placed pretty well at some well-known national tournaments my senior year and I have been judging and coaching for College Prep for the last 3 years. I worked at the Cal National Debate Institute this past summer so I am pretty familiar with the topic area.

People that Shaped my Debate Philosophy

Christina Phillips, Mike Shackelford, Jon Sharp, Chris Paredes, Michael Wimsatt, Cade Cottrell, Christian Bato, Jyleesa Hampton, Nate Fleming, and Kelly Ye

Top Level

Debate is a competition, but education is intrinsic to the discussion that takes place.

Line by line is important so please try to be organized. I do not have a perfect flow, but I will do my best to catch every argument. Please flow on paper if you can, especially if you are younger or really trying to improve. I get that the world is digital, but unless you are a savant at multitasking, it is much more effective to just flow on paper.

Write my ballot at the top of the 2NR/2AR and set the thresholds for victory or else I will try to piece together the round looking for the easiest way out sans calling for cards. Tech over truth within reason.

I will not vote on blatantly problematic arguments and will likely punish you via speaker point reduction if you make them. Anything that is done that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of everyone in the round will result in an auto loss and the necessary disciplinary actions will be taken.

Just do you and I will listen intently. Please just do your best and I will adjudicate as objectively and effectively as possible.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages

Be explicit and clear in the impact debate. I want good and warranted impact comparison with tons of turns case/turns disad arguments at the top. I also want explicit link debating with an extension of warrants and not just a repetition of the tag for the link. Politics disads are great but I would like a somewhat coherent link that is topic or aff-contingent and not just a generic "new bill saps PC" or "new bill kills focus" argument.

Counterplans

I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counterplans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality

Love these debates, but sometimes people get too bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interps is important. I think that intent to exclude is more important than intent to define regarding predictability, but this is only marginal.

Conditionality

I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Kritiks

I like Kritiks, but I really hate when teams do not do the work that is necessary to make a cogent argument. I think that the alternative is the hardest thing to win, and more often I vote for teams that invest a lot of time and good ink on the framework debate and one or two solid, specific pieces of link offense against the aff. The more specific link is obviously better. I also think that it is possible to win absent case defense, but only if you are winning the correct framework offense.

Planless Affs

I think that my thoughts on the K apply here with a bit more nuance involved. I prefer that the aff be related to the topic and that it actually does something that is a departure from the squo. Framework is a good strategy, but if executed poorly, the aff will have an easy time getting my vote. The neg must also answer the aff because it will be hard to win framework without contesting the method of the 1AC. I am most likely to vote for whoever consolidates and focuses on a central point of offense and impacts it out better.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

Please put brand@responsible.com and lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain

Long, long, long ago; back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, I was a regional finalist in High School impromptu and parli.

Now I am merely a parent judge and no longer have a dinosaur to ride, so instead I judge IE and Parli (and now Policy).

SQUALS 2023: I am a lay judge and have been judging debate for four years (two years for policy). Please, please, please don’t spread. I’m not going to vote on anything completely absurd like squirrels not having proper scuba gear leads to extinction. I will try to be as tech > truth as I can be, but my biases in terms of truth will probably influence decisions even if I don’t intend that to be the case. I have expertise in 5 areas of science and engineering.

Please read an actual plan in 1ac. We are not here to debate about the value of debate or try to attach metaphysics to real and important earthly problems.

Topicality: I will understand topicality and vote on topicality if you can prove that their plan has made the debate significantly unfair.

Kritik: Don’t run these with me, they’ll confuse me and I’ll mark against you for them if I’m confused.

CP: Love counterplans, bonus points if they are unique and well explained.

DA: Please don’t read some generic link, make the link specific to the aff, and make sure to explain impact link chain clearly.

Case: Love case debate, if you can prove you know the aff better than the affirmative does and then prove its a bad idea I will be very impressed and give you good speaks.

Cross-X: I flow cross-x, don’t be overly aggressive or rude, it will reduce speaks. Strong cross-x which will increase speaks include: any question that highlights a missing link in the argument or an inconsistency in the argument.

+0.1 if you tell me what your favorite dinosaur is before you speech

In IE, I particularly look for

* good transitions

* cohesion (does it sound like a single talk instead of unrelated series of short monologs)

I strongly dislike when the enthusiasm to show emotion interferes with diction and severely treble shift voices.

In Parli,

* I have difficulties when people speak too fast. (Especially if it is faster than my pet dinosaurs used to run.)

* I am generally not persuaded by "theory" in Parli.

Email: anusat02@yahoo.com

I'm a parent judge and I am new to policy debate. Please, no spreading. Speak at a conversational speed.

I am tech > truth.

I do pay attention to cross-ex.

Explain your arguments clearly. In the rebuttals, you should tell me why exactly you win. You should essentially be writing my ballot for me.

Please have a fair debate. Debate is an educational activity and it should be enjoyable.

Please include this in the email chain: lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com

This is my first tournament ever so please, please, please go slow. I will not understand anything if you start spreading and run 10 off :/ I don't know anything about the topic so please explain clearly what your arguments are.

4 years of debate at James Logan High School, 1 Semester of debate at Binghamton University

At James Logan, I was a straight up policy debater, and at Binghamton, I was a straight up performance debater

I have judged high school debate on the 2014-2015 topic, the 2018-2019 topic, and the 2022-2023 topic

Top level: Frame the round. First, what am I? Am I a policymaker, am I an educator or am I a critic, what IS the role of the judge? Second off, what is the role of the ballot? What does my ballot do? Third off, why should I prefer your arguments over theirs? Framing arguments WIN rounds.

Performance affirmatives and negatives: I LOVE THESE! Dance! Blast music! Rap! As long as you have offense against your opponent and can win and can defend your arguments, do as you please!

Framework against K/performance affs: I would like reasons why pretending to be a policymaker or policymaking in terms of this topic is specifically good and has benefits over their model of education/model of debate

Counterplans: These are ok, I would love to see a straight turned counterplan though on the aff

Disadvantages: These are ok, I would love to see a straight turned Disadvantage though. on the aff

Kritiks: These are ok, I would like to see a straight turned Kritik though on the aff

For performance affirmatives: If you aren't defending a type of binary, I would highly suggest you watch out for this binary good, and this paradigm of analysis is better for analyzing our world type of arguments.

I like when performance affirmatives are engaged with other Ks, instead of just topicality/framework. I debated for Binghamton so I saw lots of performance vs performance rounds.

I also like BINARY VS BINARY rounds, so like black/white binary vs radical feminism male/female binary

I also haven't debated a while, so try to go slower or not spread at all. If you do spread, be slow on your tags, or just include me on the speech doc.

I am a parent judge with no formal judging experience. Please do not spread. I have limited topic knowledge so please explain all terminology. My email is juliedeford123@gmail.com. Good luck to everyone!

Hi

I’ve never judged policy debate I’ve judged speech in the past please dont Spread my email is anakellerw@gmail.com

be respectful and kind and don’t forget to have fun

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

I am the father of a debater in policy from Dougherty Valley High School. I judge in policy and LD with 2 tournaments of experience. I award speaker points based on how clear and understandable you speak, so please make sure I am able to understand what you are saying. I make my decision based on the reasoning of your arguments, and I also pay more attention to your rebuttal speeches, but this does not mean the constructive is disregarded. When I take notes on the debate, I write down the general argumentation, but not too much detail. For cross-examination, I pay more attention to how you speak than what questions are asked and answered, but this does not mean that you can say whatever you want.

Debate coach. 3 year state qualifier with a focus in congress/extemp/public forum. I tend to focus on logic and argumentation first and foremost. While I appreciate good delivery, it won't overshadow analysis. I will be flowing the debate, so framework debate and dropped arguments will be noted. Try not to speak too fast, I can't give you what I can't flow.

Please give special attention to your closing speeches. Crystallize/summarize the discussion so that I can make sense of what is on my flow. I will not penalize you for every little dropped argument if they are ultimately extraneous to the debate, so please try to prioritize what is most important in the round.

Win the argument, win the round :)

Hi my name is Daniel Nguyen and I'm a parent judge for James Logan High School. Some key things to know before going into the round:

I prefer everyone to speak with clarity rather than forced speed.

I look for clear and straightforward arguments with strong evidence.

Make sure to always be respectful in cross.

First, I do not believe in spreading.  Please do not spread in a round with me.  If  you want to have better contentions, please choose better evidence, not pack more evidence in.  

I am fine with topicality/theory, but do slow down for the interpretation and standards for me to have sufficient time to write it down. 

I understand basic kritiks, but please nothing with too high theory.  Keep it simple though and make sure to slow down for role of the ballot args and the alt.  

The best arguments are the regular plan/CP args.  I would prefer these, but feel free to use whatever you want.

If I do not understand the argument or if it is not extended, I will not vote for it.  Explain everything thoroughly and focus on content, not amount.

Experience:

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley.

Policy:

Add me on the chain: rileyreichel@gmail.com

Tech > truth but arguments need warrants.

I see debate as a strategic game which means I'll evaluate all arguments. This means you should go for arguments you'd be afraid to break in front of other judges and I'll reward you with speaker points.

FW

Debate is a game (the implication of this is up for debate)

Not super convinced with fairness as an impact, prefer clash/skills.

If going for the counter interp, explain what your model looks like. Very convinced by neg push back about what teams would do if they had an unlimited topic.

Think it's more strategic to go for the impact turn.

I probably vote more for the K but believe in T impacts more -- K 2ARs tend to have a better idea of offense and bigger picture view of the debate whereas 2NRs sound generic.

Kritiks

Read the K a lot in high school. Please don't spread jargon at me and explain your theory of power.

Will decide the FW debate one way or another and will decide the rest of the debate from there.

Prefer debates where the link is to the plan and the K goes for turns case and the alt.

I like 2NCs that sound like a history lesson and use those empirics to show how if the plan did get implemented, the harms that might happen.

Counterplans:

I err neg on most theory.

I'm willing to kick the counter plan for you if you say that the counter plan is conditional.

T:

Think evidence quality matters a lot. Favorable to precision and predictability rather than debatability.

The topic is huge and have not seen any convincing T interps that limit the scope of affirmatives.

Not super comfortable evaluating techy T rounds, be clearer in the rebuttals about impacts.

Misc:

Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T.

I like creative arguments. Read arguments you wouldn't normally read in front of a different judge. Tech over truth which means that I'll evaluate from the flow.

Prep ends when you stop typing. Don't count sending the doc as prep

Ethics challenges will be handled with regards to that specific tournament. If you want to stop a round then please follow the rules on how to do so. If you want to debate it out, then feel free but know that then it comes down to who did the better debating instead of who is right.

I won't auto vote against death good, people who read extinction impacts should be prepared to defend them. I draw the line at arguing that specific people should die (i.e. debaters in the room) and I will auto-vote against any argument along that line.

"X evidence is old" is meaningless unless you prove why that matters.

Extra .1 speaks if you make fun of a current cal debater or a former/current HRS debater in your speech

My name is Oliver Suarez and I am a parent of a student in a speech and debate team.  I started judging debates last year when my son entered the debate competitions.  I have judged oral interpretation and policy debates.  

As a judge, I prefer to judge debates without spreading so I can listen more accurately to the information.  But if spreading is preferred by the competitors it is fine with me as my preference is more to the benefit of the competitors.

I have judged public forum for two years (parent judge). Please send your speech docs/cases to me at mail2piri@gmail.com so I can follow your speeches easier.

Voting:

I require judge instruction, so please include things like voter issues in your speeches. Act as if you're writing the ballot for me.

Do a good job responding to arguments. I look at arguments that are dropped, and how much of your opponent's arguments you could properly respond to.

I take cross into account. Please take into account the quality of your questions and answers.

Delivery is very important, act confident.

Speed: My preferred rate of delivery is conversational speed.

Things that I like in rounds:

1) Signposting: please signpost throughout your speech. If I can follow your arguments, it will be easier for me to vote for you. Also, please give me a brief order before your speech (ie my case, their case, weighing) and please stick to that order.

2) Numbering your arguments: another thing that makes it easier for me to follow your speech.

Lowell '22

Cal '26

Contact Info

Policy rounds: lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com

LD rounds: taylor.tsan@harker.org

Policy

I judge like the Walmart version of Debnil Sur and Jessie Satovsky - refer to their paradigms if you're confused about anything on mine.

NATO Topic: I don't know anything about it, so please err towards over-explaining/avoid topic-specific acronyms.

Lay Debate: I'll evaluate the debate as a slow round unless both teams agree to go full-circuit. Adapt to the rest of the panel before me.

Topicality: It's the negative's burden to prove a violation - even if you're doing well on your offense/impact calc, I'm going to have a hard time voting for you if I can't clearly explain why the aff doesn't meet. I think debate is both an educational space and a competitive game, so I will be more persuaded by the model that maximizes its benefits for debaters and creates the most level playing field for both sides.

Counterplans: I think unlimited condo is generally good. I'm better for the aff in competition/theory debates where the counterplan competes off of certainty/immediacy, doesn't have specific lit to the aff and has a completely irrelevant net benefit, or fiats a bunch of large-scale planks that lack any evidentiary basis. Deficits should be clearly impacted out in and before the 2AR for me to vote on them.

Disads: Turns case arguments and aff-specific link explanations matter most for me. Logical, smart analytics can do just as much damage as ev.

Ks: Most familiar with cap/setcol/IR or law bad stuff. I look at framework first and it decides how I view the rest of my flow/compare impacts. I think I have a higher threshold for links - so contextualization, turns case analysis, pulling lines from the 1AC, etc. are important for me.

K Affs/Framework: I have the least experience judging these debates and do not feel confident judging a KvK debate. "As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote aff." - Mr. Sur

LD

I just started judging LD and never competed in the activity, so explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way.

Misc.

I won't read evidence at the end of the debate unless you explicitly tell me to and send a compiled card doc.

Read whatever you want - if an argument is truly so bad that it shouldn't be debated, you should be able to beat it with zero cards. With that said, there is a clear difference between going for certain args and being actively violent in round, and I have zero tolerance for the latter.

+0.1 speaks if you make fun of a current cal debater/anyone on the lowell team and i laugh

Be nice, don't cheat, and have fun!

I am a parent affiliated with sonoma academy.

Do not assume I know anything about the topic so explain any terminology that isnt inherently clear

I have a long background in business administration

State qualifier 2023 is my first tournament judging

Here as an open book to listen and judge

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Add me to the email chain - kellyye16@gmail.com

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time, or you will not like your speaks.

I think about debate in the same way as this guy. (He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you).

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy > K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.* I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

*Outside of the blatantly offensive arguments, but I think that's obvious.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me. Top level framing and cleaning up the debate for me >>>>>>>>. This makes it infinitely easier for me to resolve debates, but I'm seeing less and less of this in 2NRs/2ARs that I've judged recently. You will be rewarded with inflated speaker points for simple framing at the top that includes phrases like "You're voting aff this round because x, y, z" or "Even if they're winning x, y is true."

I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.

Obviously I'm fine with speed, but it seems like people have forgotten to sign post or slow down on tags/analytics. I'll clear at most 3x, but if I'm missing important stuff you'd like on my flow, that's on you. I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else.I usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy.

CPs

Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.

I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

PICs good

Smart solvency deficits >>>>

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Ks

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“

Topicality

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds, which you can read about under the "General Things" section above.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

email chain/contact :youngmammabear@gmail.com

im not new to policy debate, but i havn't judged since 2014. please don't spread. i will do my best to judge you, tech>truth for the most part. please be patient with me! do your best and have fun, debate should be educational so treat it as such!

I am a parent.

Please speak slowly and clearly, English is not my first language but I will try my best.

I am very interested in debate. If you are able to clearly explain your argument to me, I will vote for you.

If I cannot understand you, then you are most likely not gonna win.

One argument I can understand is probably more important than 10 arguments you think you are winning on.