Here's my judging paradigm:
Before I begin, here's a little bit about my background and correlation with debate:

If you need further information on your round or ballot, you may email me at jesus.anaya92@gmail.com

You may send me a picture of the ballot to refresh my memory of the round.

I inherently come to the round with an unbiased mindset otherwise I tend to strongly look at Neg for a neg ballot;

I feel this is were framework is important to me, I would make it an important note that the judge (I) may feel like the USFG within the round throughout the round depending on how you read your AFF or NEG.

Otherwise, I think framing the round to be important here.

This is a National Sport.

Performances, Poetry, K. Affs, K's, Narratives, changing Resolved, Use of Other Resources Within the Round may be questioned until framed within the round.

The transition of paper cases/tubs (traditional debate or latter) to a more modern way of debating (laptops/K,Spreading -I'm okay with Speed) may be debated if you think that's important as part of your voter.

It's always great to use the classroom space as an integrative part of the debate in order to feel like the debate sphere is important to "Occupy" the classroom space and learning why it's important to the debater or judge.

If you feel like it's important to use your computer to check status quo issues, you may. I feel using this to implement impact calculus would potentially further a voter as to make you more of a Realist or status quo relevancy.

Debated LD for 2.5 years in high school.

While I did not debate Policy in high school, I came to know the logistics of it my high school junior year. I have been judging Policy ever since. So, approximately 4.6 years in the RCC and LCC circuit at Chicago's CDL.

I debated Parliamentary Debate in college for 2 years.

Speaker points:
Debate is much more than just eloquent speaking and speeding 20 arguments in 5-8minutes.
Be COHERENT when speaking. While I am generally okay with speed, you must be clear or I'll stop you.
I tend to give higher speaker points when you extemporaneously speak your last speeches. Don't just read cards, use your knowledge and understanding of the arguments made in the rebuttals and constructive. During your R's, if you plan on reading cards, take at least 10 seconds to link them to your wining argument, don't just read them to fill up time.
Using your own words and analysis may get you higher speaker points. Take your time and explain. Depth over Speed/Breadth.
I generally come into a round with a Tabula Rasa mindset so you can see how easily it is for you to get my vote.

Kritiks/Perfomance/Narratives/Critical
I'm generally okay with them. If you go for K, performance, narrative or anything in that nature, you better have established and won the framework debate. If you're running those types of speeches, whether AFF or NEG, please do yourself a favor and know it from beginning to end. Don't lose yourself and find yourself in a situation where you misinterpret or fail to understand the philosophical arguments. Most importantly, If you're presenting any of the above, please shower me with link analysis. Make that your priority.
If you're running Non-Traditional Policy (K, Critical-Aff, Performance; as I'm seeing them come up in rounds) just make it clear to me at the beginning of the round why you're doing it, and then toward the end of the round why I should prefer it over a policy based/or why that in itself is a policy based option- yeah you can run them but let me know why that > Policy)

Counterplans
I'll consider them in the round. Establish why I should prefer your plan over AFF's early in the round. If you're AFF, make it your priority to establish early in the round if NEG's CP is conditional or unconditional. Believe it or not, this would save you in the round, not just time but my vote, if you decide to drop it and NEG decides to go for it.

Topicality
You better present your interpretation coherently, it better not be muddled. If scattered, you're just asking for a disaster. Please tell me how AFF violates T or how they don't meet your interpretation. Walk me through the standards, don't just speed through them. Why is your Interpretation superior? At the end, tell me why I should vote T. All in all, if you're running a T, I better hear the terms: Interpretation, Violations, Standards, Voting Issue. With me, you win T if you have won the interpretation debate.

Theory Arguments
Honestly, I believe any argument can be won with a little bit of theory. Shape the round for me early in the debate with theory and BAM, you won my heart. Tell me how your specific theory argument is a crucial check to the AFF, or the round for that matter.

Structure your theory arguments in a way where I am able to identify which issue I should prioritize as a judge.

Impact Calculus
If you utilize impact calculus from beginning to end, you have already earned yourself great speaks. Better yet, have already earned yourself a winning argument. When evaluating winning arguments, I would prefer that you do so using impact calculus and emphasizing the terms: Magnitude, Timeframe, Probability, etc.

The Round as a Whole
When it comes to summarizing my RFD, I tend to vote on who the better thinking and analyzing team is. Sure, you dropped and argument, but that doesn't assure that the opposing team will win on it or win the round. If you fail to explain to me why I should extend your argument with analysis, I will not vote on it. During the 2AR and 2NR, it's especially important for me to hear the term "voting issue" (or highlight your most thought out arguments with analysis) and highlight why and how you ought to get that specific voter. It makes it easier for me as a judge to centralize my decision. Most importantly, it will let me know as a judge that you have acknowledged your strengths and weaknesses for that round, which is what I want for you to know at the end of the day. Have fun!

Copied and Pasted from Wiki;

Optional as I have seen in some of the rounds:

Use of Technology in the round to use Status Quo/Current Events to implement or evaluate/frame the round or Framework. Debater Framework when using Status Quo implementation.

Voting Issues/Crystallization:

Make sure to further extend your voters in a clear manner so that I may be able to cross-apply any dropped/or extended arguments.

If you feel like you need to stop the round for medical attention, please let me know.

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

Update for 2025

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

she/they

Conflicts: GBS, The Avery Coonley School and if you have been to my house.

Add me to the chain

a.bhaijidebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

For online debates: If my camera is on, assume I am not ready for the debate, I will always give either a visual or vocal confirmation that I am ready to start your speech.

LONG VERSION--Policy

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

I am not comfortable judging rounds with affs that rely on "survival strategies" or rounds that force debaters to out themselves/explain their identity for an argument.

I have less thoughts on policy rounds, not because I don't enjoy them, but because they are a lot more clear cut for me.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

DAs

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Please don't read any terror disads/impacts in front of me, I will not be a happy camper. If you have to read them, fine. But I do hope that you have an in-depth explanation of your impact scenarios and understand the nuances of WHY terrorism occurs.

Ks

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

Most teams are very bad at sticking to their framework, unfortunately for you all, I DO care about framework and will hold you accountable.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

I am not familiar with indepth topic discussions and have been out of the loop for a while when it comes to the literature, so I don't think I am a great judge for most topicality arguments.

Also, can we please explain our impacts earlier on in the debate? I also don't know when this became normalized, but we need to be putting standards in full text in the 1NC speech doc. Thank you in advance :)

FW

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools"

Defend your interpretation early on and throughout the debate. I need to be able to know how to evaluate the debate by the time I start writing my ballot.

Also I do think that "roll of the judge" and "roll of the ballot" are different (roj is the mindset in which I should evaluate the debate and rob is what my ballot signifies). Define one, define both, but please try to do at least one of those things.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would. Obviously, against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. Please give me time to get settled before you start your speech.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2025

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. I apologize for any typos or run on sentences in my published RFDs (I recommend taking notes from verbal feedback that I give after the round, it is way more detailed and I can answer any questions in real time as opposed to you trying to decipher my initial two-lined decision).

12. Let's treat the rooms we debate in with respect and care, it takes a lot for a school to host a tournament and it isn't fair that people leave garbage behind after round.
13. Have fun and let the games begin :)

Congress--

Not entirely sure if you all read these because I am supposed to explain my ethos rules at the beginning of the session. You all should be clear, concise and kind in your speeches. Have fun and good luck!

Den (She/They) - dnisecarmna@gmail.com
AmeriCorps Member for Chicago Debates
Coach at Thomas Kelly

Work in debate full-time coaching policy debate (CX) and teaching public forum (PF) to middle schoolers in the Chicagoland area. Routinely, I have topic knowledge working at debate camp(s) throughout the summer. Additionally, I do admin and social media stuff for Potomac Debate on the side. During the season, I accumulate over 60+ rounds judged on the urban debate and national circuit. I do not coach any high school program besides my alma mater, which means I have no conflicts with any other CD/UDL school.

Default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless stated otherwise in-round. I will operate on the parameters the debaters assign to me. Good practices in the debate space such as disclosure are non-voting issues. However, if your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. This includes death good. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

I open the speech document to get the plan/advocacy statement/counterplan text. Moreover, I started having to mark cards manually and delete what's not read after inspecting my flow post-speech. It's just to make sure debaters don't claim 1nc cards they didn't read put on the card doc end of the debate.

The non-negotiables

[1] adherence of resolutional discussion either by an advocacy or policy implementation
[2] order of speeches given (1 constructive, 1 rebuttal)
[3] speech and prep times allocated by the tournament

My broader thoughts on debate

Counterplans

Affirmative teams should be able to defend against process counterplans. If your solvency mechanism is strong, you should be able to beat them. Multiplank counterplans and if the negative gets to kick out of individual planks is up for debate. Affirmative teams should be prepared to answer counterplans based on the proposals their 1AC authors write out that's distinct from the plan.
I will need hand-holding on the competition debate. Questions of severance and/or Intrinsicness permutations should not be glossed over. Especially, if the affirmative wants to win perm do the counterplan.

Disadvantages

My only thought is that 'fiat' does not solve the link of the disadvantage, unless it's a rider DA. Explain why links based on trade-offs are theoretically illegitimate.

Kritiks

This is the type of argumentation I spend the most time thinking about. Be consistent on your framework throughout the debate. You must answer the line of thinking "If we win framework, that means..." and how that affects the state of the flow. On the kritik proper, reading long overviews hurts you more than helps you. Hate it when teams respond to an argument and say "that's from the overview above". Make sure to establish the role of the alternative, is it meant to solve material conditions and/or changing the way we think about things is a prerequisite. I will reward teams for early-on link work in the 1NC extrapolating lines from the 1st aff constructive.

Topicality

For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG

Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams should emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills.

K-Affs

If your affirmative is not structured as an impact turn to framework, you're not going to have a fun time. It's not a question of the literature base, it's more so your ability to explain the jargon within it. Make sure to do impact framing work to not lose to the impact turn (cap good, heg good). Lastly, please continue the act of the performance. Teams should *probably* weigh their performance more past the 1AC.

------

Hall of Famers / Ppl I Interact with the most...

Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Juan Chavez, Victoria Yonter, Aasiyah Bhaiji, Abigail Spencer, Jairo

I'm a JV debater at Lincoln Park High School. This is my second year judging. I generally vote on flow. Spreading is fine with me, be sure to speak as loud and clear as you can. Please give a roadmap before you start your speech. I don't flow CX but I take it into account. Feel free to include disads and CP's into your arguments. Strong speaking and argumentative skills appeal to me. Ultimately, the arguments you want to run is up to you, and I will do my best to be a fair judge. Be respectful to your partner/opponent(s). Have fun!

mlcpolicydebate[at]gmail[dot]com and smdebatedocs[at]gmail[dot]com

Truth/Research > Tech

I have zero topic knowledge. Goes double LD and PF.

Fairness is an impact.

Record for K Affs: K Aff (6 Wins) - Neg (5 Wins)

If you are a team that does the following, your speaks will suffer:

--requires more than two minutes to send an email,

--starts the round late,

--steals prep,

--disrespects others,

--uses SpeechDrop,

--fails to add both emails in the paradigm to the chain.

Asking questions about what was read during a speech counts as CX/prep.

My email is arcollazo3@gmail.com

I have ******judged ONE varsity-level tournament.****** I do not keep up with high school meta-strategies or the ridiculous amount of ways the community has found to rank one another. I am majoring in International Studies and Chinese, and thus my knowledge of this year’s topic is very limited—keep that in mind when using acronyms/highly specific jargon otherwise you will probably not like my decision.

Put me on the email chain—kaylanfdebate@gmail.com and northsidedebatedocs@gmail.com—you should send the 1AC the moment you get the pairing unless you’re breaking new, even if I’m not physically in the room. Always be ready to give the 1AC by start time if possible. My name is pronounced "K-lyn," please don't call me "judge"

TL;DR: I will flow and evaluate all arguments except out-of-round conduct accusations and actions that constitute a team officially seeking to stop the round and involve tab. I am heavily biased against arguments that eschew line-by-line debating and/or clash. I have never read a planless aff and have not read de-ontology since 2020; I have read extinction impacts (ranging from likely to nearly impossible in probability) every year since then. 100% of my (non-theory) 2NRs my senior year were the Cap K.

DAs

Despite spending much of my senior year reading critical arguments, I spent a significant amount of time researching the nuances of various DAs (econ, rate hikes, international modeling/fragmentation, etc). ~50% of my 2NRs on the 2022-23 NATO topic were going for Turkish Politics, which I extensively researched throughout the year. I appreciate teams that leverage evidence quality & warrants to win/beat back various aspects of DAs—teams that can not only explain a cohesive story, but also contextualize scenarios, links, and UQ to affirmative answers will earn my ballot.

CPs

I enjoy counterplans with crafty texts or functions specific to the affirmative. I generally find little reason to consider most counterplans outright abusive & most theoretical reasons to reject types of counterplans (PICs, process, etc. etc.) are personally not too convincing to me (dropped/mishandled theory, of course, is still an easy path to a ballot). Theory, however, is a great tool to justify sneaky permutations or affirmative terror against counterplans.

NOTE: Please DO NOT read all of your permutations at once at the top of your 2AC. This is impossible to flow and I will not be afraid to vote negative on “I did not hear the permutation in the 2AC.” I will judge kick unless told otherwise.

Kritiks

100% of my 2NRs my senior year were the cap K. I also did a lot of research/lab work on IR and identity Ks. These work best with coherent links to the function, consequences, or the core assumptions of the aff. If you can read your 1NC against a completely different aff or if the 2NR is going to be 4m30s of framework and 30s on the link, I’m much more amenable to voting aff. A surprising number of “K teams” cannot answer core objections to their theory such as “realism true/progress possible/stopping extinction good” which you should try and exploit. There is also an inverse correlation between the arrogance/rudeness of a team and their skill level which particularly applies to K teams and especially to high-theory/pomo goop teams.

Planless Affs

Not the best judge though about 40% of my negative rounds were against them. The affs that make the most sense to me are the ones that aren’t random atopical assertions (i.e. postmodern nonsense) but anti-topical arguments–i.e. a reason why debates over the resolution/the resolution itself is violent. My senior year, I went exclusively 1-off cap against these affs, and often found that most affs lack a good defense to impact turns regarding political engagement. That being said, I have shown up to tournaments after two hours on the city bus to face opponents with three monitors and $27k+ invested into workshops so I’m not unsympathetic to arguments about the inequality inherent to the activity.

Misc.

• I don’t time prep & I do not care about teams going a couple seconds over/having trouble sending out documents. There’s no need to stress because you’re combing through your files to attach the doc to the chain–it’s very clear when someone is being genuine.
• That being said, I will call out teams who are stealing prep (it’s obvious) and their speaks will reflect that. Also, please do not make the debate longer than need be. This mitigates the amount of time I have to give written feedback and makes judging very frustrating.
• There is no such thing as “inserting” a card unless you have already read every highlighted word verbatim. Debate is a communicative activity and inserting a card does not communicate anything.
• I think research is debate’s largest portable skill–I love to read evidence and reward debaters who have clearly done their homework on their arguments.
• Unlike some judges on the Illinois circuit—many of whom are adults/grad students who should know better—I am genuinely interested to hear debaters give their best arguments and will not make fun of you mid-round about prep/cross-x/your debating. Everyone in the room has put in countless hours pouring over journals that most other high school students wouldn’t—I’m here to evaluate the round with as little bias as possible and not devalue the work that y’all have done.
• Belittling your opponents (different from being sassy/assertive), randomly swearing, calling cross-x "cross," and starting your speeches at max speed are all things to avoid.
• Do yourself a favor and ignore the Coaches Poll, debate ranking websites, and arguments about the "best debater/2N/team." You're better than that.

pronouns : she/her/any, email: isabellasgandara@gmail.com (i usually prefer fileshare in NSDA Campus when possible)

I debated for 4 years in CX, primarily as a policymaker debater with a specific focus on structural violence. If no other frameworks are given during the round, I will default to this paradigm: affirmative wins if they prove the aff world is better than the neg's, and the opposite for negative.

I highly prefer evaluating frameworks given by the debaters in rounds, however, and want to be as close to tabula rasa as possible in that respect. Laying out a logical and convincing reason to vote aff or neg, and then linking your case impacts/method/etc to that is an important part of your rebuttals, so please do as much work for your judge in that respect.

Quick Notes --

** I won't accept dehumanizing or hateful rhetoric, including racism, transphobia, sexism, ableism, or anything else discriminatory. Saying something blatantly hateful will lead to you being downvoted. Consistent misgendering of your opponent after multiple corrections falls under this same rule.

I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. Insulting your opponent's intelligence/knowledge/abilities will cause me to drop speaks.

T --

I really liked T when I was in debate and I think good debates where the interpretation or counterinterpretation provides a meaningful definition of the topic are great. Therefore, I really like T *when it is used purposefully*. Between competing intepretations, standards are the most important. Feel free to get creative here and explain why I should prefer your interpretation and how that fits into debate as a whole- it's an opportunity to advance a certain model of debate, and your interpretation along with standards and voters can help support it.

If your definition is fairly arbitrary (i.e. "substantially"), I would likely feel comfortable voting on reasonability.

DAs --

Naturally I am fine with DAs and they can be really useful in any negative strategy. A major issue I see is that link chains, especially in ultra-generic 1NC shells, are sometimes really shoddy and rely on a lot of jumps in logic to be true. The more specific your evidence is to the link chain (i.e. impact threshold, timeframe), the better your DA will be able to withstand attacks. Link specificity always > generic links.

CPs --

Unless you argue otherwise, I will default to the aff if the CP provides no clear net benefit. I really love CPs, and I love when they are used in combination with DAs. There is a lot of potential for you to make links to DAs to the plan, the perm, or even the CP, especially apart from impact debate.

On perm debate, make sure the perm is actually clear instead of just saying perm do both. Perm debates are really great when either side can provide evidence about what it would look like.

Ks / K Affs --

I was never much of a K debater in high school, but I have since gotten familiar with some literature. Probably not the best idea to run high-level Ks in front of me, especially if you don't want to explain the basic terminology.

Also, be clear about the impact of your K, and what the alt does. It's up to either side how to weigh the impacts, but it gets messy when one side is talking about fiat and the other is talking about impacts in round. Like I said, I am a policymaker by default, so be sure to give me an ROB to explain how and why I should vote outside of that paradigm.

I like Ks the best when they provide a meaningful and specific criticism of the affirmative/resolution, and can elaborate what that means for the debate. You don't always have to win alt solvency to win the K flow.

When running a K be sure to explain the method, especially if you are going for an in-round/a priori method.

K affs are cool when they provide a meaningful critique of the resolution and interact with framework in a way that is consistent with the thesis. I think K affs are most vulnerable to the fairness/education voters on FW, so you will need to have good answers to this when running a K aff.

Framework + Theory --

Like with T, I love FW and T because they let you lay out what you think debate should be and why. You can tell me how to prioritize arguments, which ones to reject, or why to vote down the other team. There is a lot of freedom here so feel free to put them out there, as long as you can argue against your opponents and prove what impact it has and why (theory should probably be run if your opponent has already been abusive or if the possibility of abuse is particularly high).

I am generally tech > truth so if your opponents bring up an argument about procedure that doesn't favor you, make sure to answer it, and tell me why I should reject it.

Case --

I think case arguments can go largely ignored in policy-centric rounds, except for impact calc + framing. I love when case issues are included in the debate, because it creates a mix of offense and defense that I much prefer to straight offense. Solvency is a big thing for me; often, it's hard to decide on alone, but it can really go a long way to helping your case.

Misc.

I don't really like conditional negs where the arguments are all over the place. I also don't like when the 1NC has about 7 off case only for most of them to be dropped by the 2NR because the neg is going for whatever their opponent drops. These often overlap, so please make sure your negative case is clear, substantive, and (mostly) cohesive. I am not against dropping arguments, and I'm never going to automatically vote you down for doing that, but it is usually obvious when it is a core part of your neg strat, and I will probably rule that it's unfair if it's brought up.

I'm going to vote, to the best of my ability, solely on what is presented to me in the 2AR and 2NR. I will flow the whole round and try to include constructive feedback from the whole debate, and I will base my speaker points/rankings off the debate as a whole, too. But I cannot vote on an argument that was extended into the 2AC and never brought up again.

-- Under this same vein, if you tell me to drop your opponent's argument because they didn't extend something/they didn't bring it up in the rebuttal, I'll probably do just that.

-- Also, please extend your evidence into as many speeches as you can. It makes the debate a lot messier if cards only pop up every other speech, and I will usually defer to the team that points out that your evidence wasn't extended in the speech before.

Speed is mostly fine, I'll follow along and I want evidence to read along to what you have. I won't intervene into the evidence unless the debate comes down to a single card that has been contested without good response from either side.

I love clash, and I love when debaters tell me why to prefer their card on an issue. I don't need an appeal to authority, I usually prefer you to look at the warrants of evidence or the link chain of an argument and tell me why you think their evidence shouldn't be considered, and why yours should.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

1. Strategic overviews with judge instruction that explains how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
2. Comparative warrant analysis throughout
3. Well-impacted arguments that collapse down to the essentials by the end of the debate

I will do everything I can to resolve the debate based off of my flow rather than by following along with your speech doc or reading evidence.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I flow what you say not the speech doc so you need to be intelligible. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate. I don't understand how one would evaluate a plan text in a vacuum.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts. I tend to err that the aff gets to weigh their impacts under most frameworks even if they also have a burden to (for example) justify their methodology to access them.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

K v. K: Try to keep it as organized as possible and don't skip a strategic overview that explains the interaction of arguments. Links should be specific and contextual to aff. I like these debates the most when warrants are fleshed out, nuanced, and (I'll say it again!) specific with minimal cards.

Clash debates: You don't have to be topical or defend government action but you probably need a link to the topic. Whether you are aff or neg, give me a clear role of the ballot and explanation of your model and its advantages. I evaluate tech over truth but I do believe that debate has significant disparities and that conversations that seek to confront and address that are important.

Speaker Points: I reward judge instruction, line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I prefer fewer cards, fewer blocks, and more debating off your flow. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive or deceitful, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

Email: michaeldavidh5@gmail.com

Current Affiliation: None

Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): I’ve judged for several different schools. I coached and debated for Lincoln Park HS.

Debate Experience: Three years high school debate experience, attended summer institutes at Emory, Northwestern and Dartmouth. I have been a debate coach for one year. I currently judge tournaments off and on and won’t know topic intimately.

DISADVANTAGES: I enjoy politics DA. Every DA needs to tell a solid link story (incl. Internal Link), generic links being less convincing.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: More persuaded by arguments of education than fairness. Team usually needs to prove in-round abuse or loss ground for me to vote on fairness. I find reasonability counter-standards to often be convincing. Teams must commit significant time to T or theory arguments in rebuttals for it to become a voting issue.

COUNTER PLANS: If decent theory arguments are made, I inclined to vote down PICs and Consult CPs. I’m not a fan of Conditional/Dispositional debates and rarely vote down a team because of it. I tend to find CPs without a spelled out plan text abusive.

KRITQUES: Links and internal links need to be clear. I prefer the alternatives to be thoroughly discussed. If K lacks an alternative then I need to know the role of the ballot. Framework and “Role of the Ballot” needs to always be competitive (e.g., should not simply be “vote against the plan”).

KRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am open to K Affirmitives, but the more radical they are, the more Affirmitive must define their interpretation of policy debate. Affirmitive must have prepared response for what the Negative can potentially run against the case.

MISCELLENEOUS: I’m a bit old-school in preferring to see debaters standing up, and looking at the judge during cross-x. Tag team is allowed, but partner of debater being questioned should not dominant the responses. Please be nice and respectful in asking/giving evidence, referring to the other team and conducting C-X, otherwise I can deduct speaker points. If I need to read cards/evidence as a judge then the debaters are doing something wrong.

Daniel Heylin

Email chain -share.tabroom.com

I’ve been coaching policy debate for the past 8 years at Sarah Goode STEM Academy, but did not participate in high school/college debate. I spend most of my time coaching rookie/novice teams.

I am generally tabula rasa. Everything in the round is up for debate. It is up to the debaters to tell me what to prioritize, teach me what processes I should use to evaluate, and make my ballot an easy decision. My ballot will usually go to the team who best solves the round for me, making the 2AR/2NR incredibly important. Tech does matter, but story matters more for me.

I don’t have many preferences on specific arguments. I generally prefer rounds that emphasize analysis of their cards and focus on good line by line/clash, rather than a card dump or spreading. I have a better handle on traditional policy debate, so if you are going for a K or K Aff, make sure to take the time to explain it to me. I need to be able to understand it in order to vote for it.

A note on speed, I cannot flow what I cannot hear/understand. Please make sure you are especially slowing down on your tags.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last Major update: 4/9/24: Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round. This also means that Kritiks of T are fine because the general nature what is "topical" is a contestable including the nature of the resolution itself.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Add me to the email chain: njhuang1187@gmail.com

Don´t care what you read in front of me.

Time your own speeches.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

hii  I'm Ivette I'm a high school debater and im very happy to be judging !!.

what I look for is good clash and a cx that will help the team win I'm pretty big on having something that makes me excited to hear about and I hope the neg can do that with their off-cases.

OFF CASE:

k: YES but explain well so it can be understood

T: it's fine but you'll have to debate it very well for me to vote on it

CP: I love a good cp again you'll have to really tell me why we can't perm

DA: if it's with a really good cp ill love it.

I do want the aff or neg team to tell me why they must win I want to be told a story on why if I don't pick the team something horrible will happen

I also LOVE impact calc !!!

overall have fun and be kind to one another 

Policy Debate at Northwestern

Add me to the email chain: kevindkim9@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Debate how you want to debate

Name: Sarah Lasken

Experience: I was not a debater in high school or college, but I have been the coach for the Lincoln Park debate team for the past 2.5 school years.

Email: slasken1@cps.edu

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. I understand the drive to spread as fast as possible, however if I can’t hear your arguments or warrants I can’t vote on them. Also, consider that I am not a trained debater myself, so I wasn't trained through that experience to process a vast amount of information at a rapid pace. Please speak very clearly. Furthermore, please provide clear signposting to help me follow your arguments. Number your contentions and make it evident when you're moving between them or responding to your opponent's points. Speak slowly and clearly when you are providing your tags/citing the source.

2. Neg positions: Whether you use a DA, CP, or K my top priority is you must explain HOW your argument links to the Aff/Resolution. Explain how the plan causes the DA, HOW EXACTLY the CP solves the problems of the resolution better than the aff, and how the K links to the aff. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. Framework/Topicality: I appreciate a well-argued topicality Neg because I do fundamentally believe that debate should relate to the resolution; however this is NOT a hard fast rule. I can definitely be persuaded by a strong K Aff that presents warrants for why there are fundamental flaws in the philosophy presumed under the resolution. I just need those flaws to be very clear.

4. K affs: The relevance of the K Aff must be clear and the team must present the real-world implications of the aff. How does it address significant societal issues and why is it relevant in the context of this debate and this resolution?

5. Performance affs: I often do not find performance affs persuasive because I find them to be outside the bounds and purpose of debate. That doesn’t mean I have never been persuaded by a strong performance aff, however it required clear verbal explanation of the relevancy of the performance

Other Considerations:

-I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time.

-I may ask you to slow down (multiple times) if I am unable to parse your words/argument.

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

*update- I was a policy debater for years so traditional policy affs/rounds have always been my first love but over the years I’ve come to love K affs/performance/ social advocacy just as much as traditional Policy. So please run either as I don’t really prefer one over the other.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

File sharing: My preference these days is to use the tabroom or NSDA campus file share system. If you absolutely need to use email chain then:

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

UPDATE 3/3/25: Now that I'm a few years out from actively debating, I'm certainly less well-versed in K literature than I once was. This likely means K teams need more explanation of their theory of power and sneaky K tricks to win my ballot.

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive. Don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go way slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it significantly harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Help me understand what the actual *impact* is and what it looks like.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

I've had two years of debate experience. I vote on anything that is explained well. I prefer rounds where the debaters don't rely too heavily on pre-made blocks. I like it when they show off their smarts. I'm more than okay with spreading(Speed reading) so go ahead and do it! 

Hi! I'm Abby (she/they)

yes I would love to be on the chain: abby.morioka@gmail.com

Gonzaga '25

Debated for West Campus (SUDL) & at GU for 2 years , just judging now!

I was a policy debater (all speaker positions and flex debater but tended to lean more critical) but I tend to judge more non-policy events now

My general policy is you do you, there is not really any major changes that you can do that would significantly change my decision so debate your best whatever that looks like. I follow my flow, I am all good with whatever speed you want to go at as long as you're clear and if you are not I will let you know, and read whatever arguments you want to read. Make smart arguments and explain them and you will be rewarded.

We are people before we are debaters. Be kind and treat each other with respect.

With a cumulative 13+ years of experience across multiple formats (CX, LD, PF, WSDC, Congress, BP, AP, etc) and across multiple circuits (5 continents), I like to think that I've seen it all, so I'll keep it simple.

I value and reward consistency in logic. The less logical leaps in your argument, the better.

Analyze everything, don't make assumptions.

Rebuttals should be thorough.

Don't make up evidence, I wouldn't hesitate to call for cards if something doesn't add up.

Cross (or POI in WSDC/BP) is also part of the debate, take it very seriously.

Be kind and respect your opponents.

natalie nguyen (uiuc '28)

she/ her pronouns

hard of hearing (please speak up during speeches and cx)

for other inquiries & email chains (if we are not using speechdrop/ tab share): natalienguyen4311@gmail.com

was a finalist for naudl's doty for 2024 which was cool

debated policy '20-'24, stand-in coach '22-'23, judging since '21

taught by my goat victoria yonter

see me in person? come say hi!

my baseline rules/ things i do:

> any type of bigotry (absolutely not acceptable)

> being rude to either judge(s) or the opposing team (speaker points docked)

> i time speeches on my end. for hs (jv + varsity), time yourself for prep!

> call me judge or natalie, i don't care (i feel old either way)

argument prefs:

aff/ case: extend advs! i like hearing more about them. in the case of k-affs, i love them! please make sure to be clear about the rob and advocacy/ solution.

da: i like da's, but usually they're indifferent to me if not properly extended.

cp: i'd only really vote for cp's if properly explained. they are not my favorite offcase and i tend to not vote for it because they are poorly extended. please explain them clearly if you are running it. for process cps, i often do not vote for them. i don't like them.

t: as much as i say that i dislike t, i will consider it in my ballot. you have to win on all factors of t to get me to vote. i am also a big person on the idea that hard debate is good debate, so take that as you will.

k: big fan of, yes! i am familiar with common k's (cap k, identity k's, etc), but outside of that, please make sure to really push it. love a GOOD cap k. generally a fan of k v policy debate. easily can get me to vote for you if you have a strong FW debate!

specifics off the top of my head:

> i'm a pretty expressive person and cannot control my face, so if i make weird faces, it's not at you. i'm probably just listening to your evidence and arguments and just reacting.

> i think that larger scale arguments about education good or education bad are great. think about what you take away from this debate round outside of the debate space, how it shapes you in learning and as a person, what this can bring upon, etc. same feelings towards the debate space is good/ debate space is bad. being critical about the space you exist and move in is crucial for education.

> bring back the art of signposting! i want my feedback and my flows to be clear, so please signpost for me!

> quality of cards > quantity of cards

> judge direction is ALWAYS GOOD! tell me what flow to look at, tell me what debate you're winning, tell me why i should care!

if you are wondering about something that is not listed here, feel free to ask! these are just quick thoughts and i can go into depth if need be.

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. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

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. Over time 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 qualified 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.

UPDATED FOR THE BLAKE 2024

uclabdb8@gmail.com for speech docs

spatel@chicagodebates.org for anything else

**background**
i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. i direct programming for Chicago's urban debate league. my academic background is medicine. you may be counseled on tobacco or marijuana cessation. relax, have fun!

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates (Chicago's urban debate league): 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- Chicago Debates Summer Institute - lecturer
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***paradigm***

- i view the speech as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- judge instruction is great - if you put me in a box, i'll stay there
- i like k v k or policy v k debates, as i read critical lit for enjoyment. however i end up with more judge experience in policy v policy rounds as it's north shore debate
- pen time matters. slow down a tick on your scripted analytics, overviews, theory subpoints, etc. if you want me to vote on it. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters.
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your volume and your music's volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing the debate

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. if you spam a wipeout file, go away. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate. my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.8 & above means I think you belong in elims. 2ARs: do not abuse the 2NR with new arguments.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from "Classic mode" Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i have voted several times for why that's a terrible idea. i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack! So much love for T! nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better. examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik. i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a social court, or use the ballot to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice.a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail isinvisibilia: the callout.

i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to their chaperone & tab. it's a prior question to the round.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more likely to vote on your theory argument if contextualized to the round. i want clash to be developed instead of vomiting blocks at each other.

**disads/cps/case**
i am not a legal scholar and the world of PICs on this topic is dizzying; and i'm here for it! >:D if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- chicago's urban debate leauge
- medical school, medicine
- hinustani classical music, flute
- clinical trial research
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught

**Public Forum - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Hello :)

Background on Judge stuff: 

I’m a first-year college student at UIC, majoring in chemistry! In high school I debated only for 2 years, coincidentally the 2 years that were held online. This year is my first year ever witnessing live debate rounds in person. I’m a big baseball fan. Love the White Sox 

Tournament related stuff:

I'm quite a rusty debater myself, speaking clearly should be highly emphasized with me. I’ll say “clear” if I cannot understand you. If I continuously cannot understand you, I’ll allow you to regain composure and try again; I’m never gonna give you up ;)

I’m a fan of whacky and weird arguments, please give them to me. However, I have a strict rule of involving me (aka the judge) in an argument. In high school, someone once told my judge that if they voted for me, they'd be racist. If you do that to me in a round, just know I won’t be as keen on to vote for you 

I’m not too familiar with Ks, Ts, and other stuff like that. I’ll be willing to vote for them, but just know you might need to throw in a little more elbow grease so I can understand it. I’ll never vote for something I don’t understand. 

also 0.5+ speaker points for saying “and the duck walked up to the lemonade stand” anywhere in your speech, even if it doesn’t make sense where you decide to say it :)

Kevin Ramirez

Solorio Alumni 22'

UIUC 26'

They/Them

Email {kramirez6904(at)gmail(dot)com.}

General Stuff:

- Tech>Truth

- Write the ballot for me

- Will dock points if you speak over others/ your partner in cx repeatedly

- Explain why it matters that they dropped stuff, don't just say " They dropped it, we win. Moving on"

- Slow down on/ be clear on Analytics, Tags, and Authors.

- Not familiar with the topic this year, doesn't mean I am completely lay however its gonna take me a bit to understand the arguments

Arguments:

DA: Most DA's blend in together, just explain your link and impacts well and you'll be fine

K: I have a lot of experience running a variety of critiques like Nitzche, Anthro, Security, Cap, etc. Although I do get lost at times during high theory k rounds. Just contextualize your link to the aff and explain your alt.

K Aff's: Quoting my glorious leader

" Good luck to you " - Conor Cameron

T: Im not the biggest fan of T debates, however its not like I wont vote for it. If you explain your impacts and topicality violations well and win then I will vote for you. I am not persuaded by reasonability though which is something to keep in mind.

CP: I give a lot of leeway to the aff when it comes to cp theory since I think a lot of cp's being used now-a-days is just cheaty, I also dont do judge kick unless you tell me to. Otherwise im fine with CP's.

Theory: I used to be very into theory, but not that much anymore. Just like topicality just explain your violation and impacts and you'll be good. However a lot of theory is just not viable, so unless its blatantly conceded or under-covered I wont base my ballot of it. Just stick to the basics like Condo and you'll be fine.

Hello,

My name is Angela Ruiz Amaya, I am a Senior (Class of 25') and an environmental justice major and Hispanic studies minor at DePauw University. I have been judging and coaching debate since 2020 and debated in high school. I have coached and debated at Phoenix Military Academy. My main interests are in social justice and Environmental justice. As a judge, I vote based on education. I want the debate that I am judging to be educational to everyone in the room and love to create that environment. Because of that, I am more than happy to answer questions about the framework of debate in a round AS LONG AS it doesn't affect your ideas/outcomes of the debate. I also take on an intersectional lense that allows me to focus on many different perspectives and try to practice that in both my voting and my interactions with debaters.

I vote on AFF based on strong answers to off-cases and analytical extension of the plan. Framework and extending it will lead me to vote more on the aff.

I vote on NEG based on off case that answers to the framework and plan and also creates new arguments and clashes. I vote usually on CP's, K's, T's, and theory arguments.

I put a lot of emphasis on analytical arguments, so CX and Rebuttals are my biggest voting blocks as I want you to tell me what your argument is rather than your evidence. I also vote based on impact calculus and use that as a significant argument for my voting.

I can spread quickly so please flow however you need to.

I hope to be a resource to future debates and hope we all have fun in rounds!

-Angela Ruiz Amaya

LASA 2017 / MSU 2021

ezraserrins @ gmail.com for email chain.

Notes on getting old---

Please for the love of all that is good in this world: flow.

If you're not attempting to flow in a line-by-line format where you put the answers to an argument next to where the argument was made and then maintaining that structure throughout the entire debate, then we're doing a speech activity in the same room as each other and I'm effectively judging a completely different debate than the one you're having.

I recognize I've become one of those people who is grumpy and old and complains. But I also see few scenarios where anyone is happy with the outcome of a debate where I'm consistently peeved at you for making my flow a mess and then you're peeved at me for not catching your sekrit JSPEC argument because I was trying to find the right paper when you answered condo on the wrong CP and then the 1NR talked about uniqueness on the DA first even though it was 2AC #4.

More general debate thoughts:

I will do my very best to judge your debate. I will flow. I will read cards during and after the debate. I will make up for lack of knowledge by being excessively thorough.

The team that has thought through more rounds of argument-and-response on the central issue of the debate and executes on it correctly is usually the team that wins my ballot. Teams should try to shift the central question of the debate to terms that favor them. Advanced thinking about strategy - e.g. how to shift the question of the debate - and arguments - e.g. how and why you win that question - is what I reward with speaker points.

The aff gets to fiat the plan. CPs compete on the plan, not the resolution, or "position" of the 1AC. Vagueness in the plan carries strategic costs for the aff in terms of DA links and circumvention arguments. Specification avoids those DA links/circumvention args, but means CPs compete.

How the debate progresses from start to finish matters more to me than other people. My impression of the credibility of an argument forms in early speeches and has significant impacts on who I evaluate winning a given argument. Relative to another judge, reallocating prep to give a stronger 1NC to 1NR will likely have a return on investment.

Relatedly, some arguments do not pass a basic test of credibility when they're first uttered. If an argument is complete, then it requires a response, but the expectation I have for the depth, quality, and even timeliness of that response is shaped by its perceived credibility. While you can go for whatever manner of dog water nonsense you desire and I will evaluate it, your better path to the ballot likely uses a higher quality argument.

K:

If the Neg going for T wins the following argument and explains how they apply to the aff, I think it's highly likely I'd vote for them: Neg interp is key to limited and predictable topics, those topics produce greater depth of argument refinement and clash, argument refinement and clash a) produce valuable skills and b) turn the case. Aff probably needs a piece of strong defense to at least 1-2 of those claims in the 2AR in addition to some risk of external offense. "fairness" is often "for whom?" and doesn't have an impact anyways.

Framework on the K is about determining the scope of what offense the Aff can weigh and what things the Neg can get offense against. In general, I err towards the Aff being able to weigh the Aff's impacts and the Neg's scope of links being more limited.

CPs:

I'm good for the Neg on theory questions. Conditionality is good. I will always judge kick including parts of the CP. Specific-type-of-CP theory objections are not persuasive to me and are better applied as standards for your theory of competition.

I'm generally good for the Aff on competition. CPs must be functionally competitive and probably textually competitive. Any other model is a "no".

Well written advantage CPs often solve the Aff. Affs must prove why the CP isn't sufficient. This means I'm better for "X Key" Advantages than "X is sort of key to all our advantages".

T:

The resolution defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature and language supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition.

Topicality arguments that speak to the debatability of the resolution — the "limits" or "ground" under each interpretation — carry an exceedingly high burden of proof if these topicality arguments are not also the most predictable and precise definition. Abandoning the authentic meaning of the assigned topic in order to create a "better" topic is a very tough sell.

DAs/Case:

I am bad for impact turns. I often have difficulty with a) the totalizing nature of the neg's uniqueness arg; b) the Alt working/solving Neg impacts.

I have a high standard for Neg link and Aff internal link/uniqueness evidence.

I would rather see later speeches strategically consolidate to 1-2 arguments than keep alive many threads.

Final note: there's a distinction between taking the debate and the arguments seriously (a good thing) and taking yourself too seriously (a bad thing).

Ezra

she/her

northside college prep '24- 1N/2A

ucla ‘28

claireshankdebate@gmail.com

Top line

• If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise you will be voted down and given the lowest speaks possible idc.
• tech> truth
• Frame the round for me in rebuttals- explain why i should vote for you and why you're winning the round. Judge instruction makes both of our jobs easier.
• Arguments need to be warranted out- I will not vote on "they dropped this so we win" without a full explanation of what that argument is and what the implication of dropping it means for the round.
• please flow. i will scream if you ask in cx "what did you read".

CPs

• A smartly crafted advantage CP is one of the best things in debate. Solvency advocates ARE necessary, even if it's 1AC rehighlighting.
• I like process CPs but they have to have some relation to the topic for me to buy that an intrinsic perm doesn't solve. If you write a creative perm i will be happy.
• I won't judge kick unless you tell me to

DAs

• I will vote for the team that does the better comparative impact analysis that implicates the case and incorporates quality evidence and defense. These are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but can also be my frustrating if a team doesn't provide me with a full story and gets too caught up in the impact.

T

• T debates can either be very quality or very frustrating. It's important to explain how the aff exactly violates with engagement with the other teams definitions. A good T debate includes topic specific caselists, impact debating to the model the aff creates, and evidence comparison.
• The best standards are limits, predictability and ground probably, and it's important that both teams are not just reading blocks but actually comparing their standards and explaining why theirs are better.
• Explain your violations to me as if I don't know the topic, because I haven't done a ton of research on what exactly the resolution means.

Ks

• I’m probably not the best judge for K affs- ofc you do you and i will do my very best to evaluate the round but you are going to have to over explain the aff especially on framework. I think the best K affs are ones that have some topic link.
• I went for the Cap K v K affs a lot of the time, so those debates are probably where I am most comfortable, but I can judge framework or whatever generic K aff strat as well.
• I like Ks more on the neg but I'm not super well versed in high theory stuff- if you're reading baudrillard, deleuze, or some other philosophical frameworky K, you're going to have to be really specific. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't read the K. I love myself some fem IR, Cap , antiblackness, set col, all the basic stuff. It's super important to explain your K's story and links should be articulated and used as offense.

Theory

I'm good for theory debates- esp ones like condo, PICs bad, perm theory, etc. However, it's super important to explain impacts and interps. If theory is your strategy, you have to go all in on it in final rebuttals for me to vote on it. I'm also going to be hard to convince that stuff like agent CPs, multiplank CPs or utopian fiat are abusive unless they are completely dropped.

BE NICE AND HAVE FUN!!!

Name

Jack Soltysik

for email chain: jsoltysik@pritzkercollegeprep.org

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Policy Coach @ Pritzker College Prep

Debate Instructor @ Florida Forensics Institute

Debating experience

I debated Congress in high school. I won TOC & Harvard. I finaled at NFLs 3 years in a row. I was on the 10-member ICDA All-State team 3 years in a row.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator).

My academic background is analytic philosophy and I look for sound premises and valid conclusions. At the end of a round, my flow is usually a restatement of each side in propositional logic.

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, and the end of prep time is determined by the tournament.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

Whatever the team prefers.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think that decision should be made to the debater.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 25-30 points, 25 being for poor speech, less than 25 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clear out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

Yes. No. No.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Yes.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

I want to make sure I understood the argument correctly. I don't want to issue decisions based on misunderstandings.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

Valid

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Both valid

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

Not necessary

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Valid

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I'm generally more impressed by depth than spread. I generally find depth more interesting than spread.

Hey y'all,

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

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

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

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

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

* I will vote any team down for clear bullying.

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

Former LT debater/coach

(virtual debate) Please turn your camera on while you're speaking if possible

Tell me why you win the debate, do impact calc, know the material you're reading, time yourself, don't be rude. Don't be a bigot.

I'm ok with tag team cross ex but ask the other team

for all --

I have some topic knowledge but it's not comprehensive, assume that I know nothing

Most familiar with K debate, but read whatever you want as long as you're doing in-depth, specific line-by-line

for novices --

Good line-by-line will get you further than any number of cards in round. Your 2NC should not be 8 minutes of cards. Your 2AC case defense should include analytics and extensions.

DAs--obviously fine, just make sure that you are defending and extending your entire link chain throughout the debate. If you only extend what the other team responds to and end up with just uniqueness and an impact in the 2NR, that's hard to vote for.

T-- Make sure that you clash and are directly responding to the other team's arguments. Don't just read the same T overview in every speech, go in-depth on your arguments.

CPs--make sure you don't link to the net benefit, explain how the world of the CP functions as opposed to the world of the plan, tie in solvency deficits on case to explain why the CP is better. Use the CP in your impact calc--if the aff is weighing their impacts vs your DAs but you solve the impacts of the aff, I have no reason to vote for them.

Ks--I've read a lot of Ks and I have a good grasp of security, cap, psychoanalysis, set col, and fem Ks. Even if you're reading one of those arguments, explain the theory of the K and especially your links very clearly. Read framework and do it with intention--don't just read the same 3 lines in every speech. I won't kick the alt unless you tell me to.

Theory--read it, slow down when reading, make sure you're listening to what the other team is saying and directly responding. Direct clash on theory is important. I dislike perf con and ASPEC but I will vote on it if you win on it.

K affs -- I am generally opposed to novice K affs--I think more often than not the neg is completely confused and it's not a valuable exercise for either side. I will listen to you, I will give you feedback, and I will not automatically vote you down for reading it, but I will probably lean neg.

Please read overviews, when you're speaking make sure to signpost and say "AND" or "NEXT" between cards.

Show me your flows after the round for +0.2 speaks

When it comes to K versus policy, I prefer K debates. I went to graduate school for philosophy and have coached debate in CPS for 8 years, but was never a debater. As a result I am probably considerably less technical than other judges and just want to see good argumentation. I personally think this happens when we have a clear understanding of our epistemology.

I would much prefer to judge a round where there is a lot of clash on the flow and indicts on the other team's evidence than a round in which a team overwhelms the other team with lots of advantages or CPs. K debates can be equally bad for education when they involve half-understood ideas of So, if you're running a K or K Aff, please avoid relying solely on philosophical jargon. I think the best debaters are the ones who combine their technical of knowledge of debate with common sense and some semblance of rhetorical skill.

Counterplans are fine. If you run them be sure you can clearly articulate how the plan links to the net benefit.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer debaters who slow down on analytics and theory arguments. Getting your arguments out in the 1AC/1NC should sound different from explaining why the perm fails or explaining why topicality should be a voter.

I think storytelling is important. I want you to be able to explain to me why you are winning the debate. I have two reasons for believing this: 1. I think this is an essential thinking and communication skill, 2. If you throw spaghetti at the wall and ask me to interpret it, I'm afraid that I won't interpret it correctly. Don't leave the round up to my interpretation; write my ballot for me.

I like a nice, tight DA with a carefully explained link story. Sometimes Ptix DAs get a little wild, but as long as you can sell the story, I'm willing to go along with it as a convention of debate, but would probably be sympathetic to an aff team that highlights the probability of the link chain or the quality of the evidence.

At heart I'm just an English teacher, so I will give an extra .1 spear poi if you cite some poetry in your rebuttal speech (in context) .2 if I really like the poem.

Tag team is fine; however, I think the speaker should be the one primarily responsible for answering. I don't want to see one partner dominating.

Kjtrant@cps.edu

I have debated and judged debates for about 5 years now. I have experience in more than 6 debate formats.

I encourage debaters to be keen throughout the round, be precise and mechanise their arguments in addition to weighing in of clashes in a round. But most importantly, I encourage debaters to learn from each and every debate regardless of whether they win or lose.

Rebuttals should be as concrete as your constructions because they carry as much importance.

I am okay with spreading.

jvt.debate@gmail.com

COLLEGE - debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Debate is a research-based communicative activity. Arguments that are divorced from external scholarship are not persuasive to me.

In Topicality debates I am more persuaded by arguments about limits than by arguments about ground. With planless affirmatives, the biggest issue that must be resolved is what the desired role of the Negative is and what kind of debates would be had under an alternative vision of the topic.

My knowledge about the topic largely comes from judging debates, and I have minimal awareness of argument development outside of that.

Criticisms are A-OK, but if your speeches sound like they could be about any affirmative, I am unlikely to vote for you. I understand framework as an attempt to assign roles for proof and rejoinder. Debaters often forget to explain the implications of winning their interpretation on the scope of competition for the debate.

I have basically zero patience for debate shenanigans. This is especially true of egregious Negative practices of conditionality. I will not vote for theory arguments presented in the block that could have feasibly been introduced in the 1NC, especially when hidden in responses to other arguments.

For the most part, I am flowing on paper and my computer remains closed. I am not looking at speech docs as the debate is happening. I sometimes go back to look at plan/counterplan texts if I find it necessary.

If you would like me to write down what you have said, you should deliver your speech in a way that reflects that. Arguments must be answered in the order presented - I am aligning arguments and their responses on my flow and I do not "flow straight down." If I miss an argument due to your inability to deliver a flowable speech, I will not go back to fill in that gap, and your opponents will not be required to answer the argument.

I will only read evidence as needed at the end of the debate if I need to learn more about an issue if my flow alone is insufficient to decide. People are highlighting very poorly these days, so I am putting all cards in 'Read Mode' to ensure I am only reading what was introduced into the debate.

I am not the best judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy. I am likely to vote Affirmative if an intrinsic permutation is extended somewhat competently.

ONLINE DEBATE: If my camera is off, please assume that I am not at my computer and do not start speaking.

Please put me on the email chain: sammywinchesterwalsh@gmail.com.

I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.

I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.

Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.

Please do not forget about Case. 

T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.

DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.

Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.

K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.

Tim Wegener

Debated for 8 years at Greenhill '19 and Northwestern '23.

Emails for the chain:

tpwegs3@gmail.com

And if college: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Assistant coach for Northwestern

I feel strongly that affirmatives should be topical. I am significantly better for a counterinterp + their model bad than impact turns to limits/predictability. I think I am equally good for procedural fairness and clash based offense, but the sooner the neg picks a route and sets up the associated framing questions (ballot solvency, SSD, etc.), the better.

I do not think I am very good for the K as it is generally debated. I think I am fine for more specific Ks that turn/solve the case or utilize more traditional case defense. I am much worse for Ks that rely on framework or ontology arguments to come before the case.

I'm likely to be an okay judge for theoretical objections like conditionality bad, 2NC cps bad, and arguments regarding the legitimacy of fiating certain actors (intl. actor fiat, private actor fiat, 50 state fiat, etc.). I am generally less persuaded by theory arguments that attempt to exclude a particular type of counterplan (process cps, PICs, agent cps, etc.) but I am extremely good for the aff in competition debates against these types of counterplans. Judge kick is up for debate, but it must be set up in the 2NR for me to consider it.

Inserted rehighlightings are fine if they come from your opponents’ cards. If they come from elsewhere in the articles, you should read them.

If you ask for a 30 I will give you a 27. If you go for death good you will lose (yes this includes wipeout). If you threaten other debaters you will lose and get the lowest possible speaks.

I try to adjust speaker points relative to the quality of the tournament/division. A 29 at a major is different than a 29 at a regional tournament or a 29 in the JV division.

Argument quality matters deeply, probably more to me than others. The idea that technical execution is the only thing that matters in debate, at the expense of research and strategy, is absurd. It shouldn't take much to defeat the argument that particle accelerators are inevitable so it's try or die to kill billions or global warming is good. This doesn't mean I won't vote on bad arguments. But the worse the argument the less it takes for the other team to win.

Relatedly, I will reward with speaker points and you are much more likely to win if you demonstrate actual knowledge about the topic and the world through research and strategy. Technical execution is important, but the best debates accurately reflect the real world.

Please stop asking for a marked doc unless at least ~5 cards are marked.

I have been judging debate for over a year now. In high school, I participated in the speech team (DI). Although, I wasn't a debater as a high schooler, I have a background in policy and research/presenting research. I believe in coming into tournaments with an objective perspective. I have experience judging Public Forum/ Policy Debate/ Lincoln Douglas Debate/ But I can't lie and say that I'm perfect. Always still learning!

I've dabbled in judging impromptu! But still have a lot to learn as a judge.

Please keep your delivery at a pace that can be understood. I'm fine with off-time roadmaps for categories that use roadmaps. I also don't mind giving time signals :) In general, I'm relatively flexible and just believe in judging rounds fairly and according to the NSDA rulebook. But please keep in mind, like you, I also have much to learn.

I have mostly judged in Northern Virginia and Chicago!

I was a policy debater in college but have not judged in many years so please bear with me! I do not know much about this year's high school topic.

I was a "K" debater in college but that was more out of necessity (limited card cutting resources) vs ideology. I am very willing to vote on framework.

I value persuasion and spin more than card quality.

will update this when i have more time!

Northwestern Debate '26
Mamaroneck High School '22
juliazimmerman118@gmail.com

She/Her

I'm a tabula rasa judge. I leave my personal beliefs out of the round. I have limited topic knowledge, so please explain acronyms. I am a policy-oriented debater, but I will vote for anything that is explained well.
Tech > Truth
Claim - Warrant - Impact
Have fun
Be polite

Topicality: Love a good T-debate. Fewer high-quality cards are better than more low-quality cards. Give me a vision of what the topic looks like under your interp.

Ks: Not well-versed in most K lit. I'm comfortable judging like cap, set col, security, antiblackness, etc., but I have extremely limited knowledge for high theory Ks. I dislike long overviews. Generally believe that Affs should get to weigh plan. I prefer links to the plan. I like alts that do more than rethinking.

K Affs/FW: I have much more experience debating neg v. k affs than aff v. fw. For affs, once again, limited familiarity with lit. For neg, on FW I prefer listening to fairness/clash impacts.

Counterplans: Functional and textual competition. Tell me to judge-kick. Love aff-specific PICs

DAs: Great. Well-explained case-turns make me happy

Theory: I like theory debates. I generally think condo is good.

For Novices: +.1 speaks if you show me your flows

LD Specific (Glenbrooks)
Good for LARP and passable for K. Unfamiliar with Phil. Not a huge tricks fan, but you do you.
Let's limit the RVIs to things that actually matter... Not familiar with topic, so keep that in mind regarding acronyms.