Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

Email Chain: ac5180@columbia.edu

Hi, I'm Annie! I'm a second year out of debate but still occasionally judge for Columbia. I'm majoring in financial economics with a secondary in computer science.

Since I'm not up to date with circuit norms, please slow down and explain topic-specific jargon. I'm a little hard of hearing lately, so I'll call "loud/slow/clear" as necessary without penalizing speaks. However, please note that I'll only evaluate arguments that are a] properly warranted b] I have flowed.

I debated for Harrison high school across three years (2019-22), qualifying to the TOC with four career bids and championing a couple finals bid tournaments. I also taught sessions @ VBI UCLA with Nick Smith and Marshall Thompson. I love reading idpol Ks, including literature on Asian-American, Black feminist, and Indigenous scholarship. Please substantiate your theory of power and explain your literature clearly-- I will not fill in knowledge gaps. I want you to be genuine with what you are reading!

I also genuinely enjoy mentoring and giving back to younger students involved in high school debate or research, so please feel free to reach out. Try your best to have fun! Good luck (:

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

TL;DR: I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't actively discriminatory (racism good, etc.) but also I'm bad at evaluating some stuff I talk about later.

Read this if you're a novice: The rest of this paradigm doesn't really matter for you. I will evaluate the round based on the winning framework, I don't care about the truth of an argument if it's won, feel free to ask me any questions, I'm here to help!

The Most Important Thing: I have barely thought about debate since I graduated. This means please do not go circuit speed. Also, if your strat/style requires me to correctly evaluate a million arguments and understand the tiny nuances in the way they interact, I may miss something that tangibly impacts the round. Don't let this discourage you from reading what you think is strategic, just recognize that I have been out of the scene for a minute.

Hi, I'm William, a current Junior at Columbia University. I debated LD for 4 years, mostly national circuit tournaments. wrf2107@columbia.edu for chains

LD paradigm:

Very Important: Send anything prewritten you have in a doc when you read it. Prewritten overviews, blocks, etc. This is important for accessibility.

I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter.

I don't really care what you read as long as you can explain it to me. I'm more comfortable evaluating phil and tricks stuff, then larp, then dense ks/performance. I'll evaluate whatever you read, I'm probably just better at some things. This is especially important for performance, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability, but I've never understood fully how to implicate it in round. Read what you think will win you the round, but know that I go in with prior knowledge.

some defaults (only if there's no argument about them, once a debater makes a claim about any of these, the default doesn't matter):

no rvis, no judge kick, yes 1ar theory, competing interps, drop the debater, epistemic confidence, presume neg, T=theory>K>substance, comp worlds, theory as norm setting.

If I forgot anything, ask me and I'll tell you what I default to.

Random notes that might be useful, roughly ordered by importance

1. When people say the ROB is to vote for the better debater: If you read this, I will have no clue how to evaluate the round. The point of a ROB is to tell me what it means to be a better debater, please don't just say "whoever's better."

2. Non T affs: I'm happy to vote on a non t aff if you win it on the flow, but I tend to lean more to the side of T in these debates, so you're fighting an uphill battle. (not that you can't or shouldn't read them, just know that I have tended to fall on the side of TFW in the past).

3. I have a relatively high bar for 2ar/2nr explanations for phil/k theories, don't blip past a million buzzwords, tell me why your view of the world/ethics/power/etc. is true, then why I care in the context of the round

4. Theory: Theory is only frivolous if you can prove it is. I may think shoes theory is a bad argument, but if its won its won (but I will be sad if you read shoes theory in front of me and you'll get a 26). I am also so incredibly happy to vote on reasonability in these kinds of rounds, but for some reason nobody reads that.

5. I don't flow CX but I listen to it. This means I will hold you to your CX explanations or lack thereof, but things said in CX aren't arguments.

6. Topic lit: I have read exactly 0 topic lit, don't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't tell me

7. I won't vote on "evaluate [x thing] after [current speech]". If you read evaluate theory after the 1ar in the 1ar, i won't vote on it, if you read it in the ac then read 1ar theory, I'll vote on it and be sad. That being said, I have a super low threshold for answering these arguments because they're explicitly designed to not have debate and punish someone for missing one blip.

8. Some disclosure bad args are probably underutilized and have the potential to win the disclosure debate. Interpret this how you want to lol. (Note for after rereading this: This doesn't mean don't read disclosure. If you think its strategic, go for it. I will happily vote on it if you win.)

9. Please consider the implications of your skepticism claims. If all truth claims are undecidable, your presumption and permissibility claims are too. I obviously won't make this implication in round for you, but I am sad when this isn't brought up.

Positions I loved as a debater: Ilaw, Agamben NIB, theory is incoherent, plan flaw.

PF paradigm:

I'm an LD debater, so if there are any PF specific rules/norms I probably won't know them (I know basic stuff like no new args in FF and stuff like that). I care a lot more abt the warranting you give than the specifics of the evidence/ethos-y stuff. If you can't explain your card's warrant I don't really care that it's by some famous economist. I evaluate off the flow, tell me which arguments I should vote on and why they're the most important. Also I know PF is starting to have some K/theory stuff, if both debaters are down I'd be happy to judge that round, but if one side doesn't want to, just read normal PF stuff.

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

Please just call me Hertzig.

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

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

BIG PICTURE:

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

SHORTCUT:

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

Trad debate - 1

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

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

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

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

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



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

I am a lay parent judge, and I prefer more traditional debates. I am pretty familiar with the topic.

I like debaters who are organized and have well-warranted arguments. Please make sure your arguments make logical sense. I also like debaters who take advantage of their prep time; don't stop speaking with a significant amount of time left.

I am not very familiar with more tech debate with kritiks, theory, etc, but I will still evaluate it but make sure you are overexplaining everything if you do read those. I am also not very good at evaluating spreading, and make sure you are clear in your speech.

Please email me the cases at jianhuny@gmail.com

I am a lay judge.

I am interested in well organized opening arguments supported by good research.  I also would like to hear thoughtful and to the point rebuttals to opponent's contentions/counter arguments. 

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

Greetings--

I am a parent judge who has some experience judging but is relatively new to the world of debate. I appreciate:

• Clear diction (no spreading, pls).
• Respect for opponents (i.e. avoid shaking your head, exhaling loudly, or otherwise excessively signaling your opinion of your opponents' arguments)
• nuanced argument as opposed to dealing in simplistic absolutes (i.e. "Climate change doesn't matter")

additionally:

• I expect you to keep your own time. I keep time as well. If you opponent goes overtime, there is no need to disrupt their speech to inform me.
• Spectating is fine, as long as everyone in the room (judge AND competitors) agrees to it. Ask directly to confirm.
• Special note: It's flu season and COVID numbers seem to be on the rise. If your opponent chooses to mask, please wear a mask too so neither debater has an unfair advantage.

As a former LD debater from the previous century, I am only qualified to judge Trad. Strike me if you want to run a progressive case. Read my Reality Check at the end if you'd like to know why.

1. I can't understand spreading and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. I am OK with fast speakers but you must be comprehensible. I do value eloquent well-paced presentations but generally give the win based on content, not style.

2. I value analytical arguments and logic over cards/evidence while I appreciate that evidence matters in today's LD so I will give it due consideration. While I don't love pure policy arguments in LD, I will not ding debaters for running them since those are the rules of today's debate. I do value when debaters make the analytical contention ("why deterrence is effective") before getting into the specific policy ("US must deter Iran"). Don't worry about this if you are about to step into the round. Just do your thing.

3. I am not trained to judge theory and I am not in favor of K's. If you want to argue structural violence or settler colonialism, you should do so under the resolution. I believe that the rule of debate should be to debate the resolution, not whether the resolution is appropriate.

4. I am not sympathetic to extinction arguments unless there is overwhelming evidence tying the outcome to extinction (climate change brings plenty of harms but risk of extinction is minimal). I am open to probability/impact arguments but within reason.

5. I am open to counter-plans provided that they are an extension of a contention (e.g. "A" is both harmful and unnecessary solution to "X" because there is a better way to solve for "X" with "B" which my counter-plan). To win, you need to convince me that B is better than A at solving X.

6. I consider utilitarianism to be a valid Value Premise that can be effectively defended in a traditional LD round irrespective of whether you run policy arguments.

I am happy to provide feedback after I submit my ballot. So if you are interested, you can wait for me to finish and then I'll go through my flow with you, giving you tips.

Reality Check:

1. If a judge doesn't have Progressive LD or Policy experience, they are completely unqualified to judge a Progressive LD round. So running Progressive in front of such judges just doesn't make sense.
2. To be a top debater in today's LD, your must be effective at both Trad and Progressive. I think it's a shame since the two should be run as separate events but it's just the reality today.
3. Some of the practices you engage in doing Progressive will harm you in your career unless you can unhabituate yourself from them. (A) Fast speaking makes you look inept in corporate presentations. (B) Tricks teach poor ethics, encouraging winning dirty over winning fairly with better arguments. (C) K's suggest you that you can just refuse to debate a topic, claiming its offensive which is just not an option in the real world. (D) Overreliance on quotes from pundits rather than focusing on analysis makes you a great research clerk but not a great thinker. It's puzzling why you would engage in an activity which teaches you things that will harm your success in professional life. It's like playing high school tennis intentionally using the wrong grip and getting to used to it, knowing that you'll get crushed after high school playing with this grip. I get that Progressive Debate is a game with its own fun rules but Trad actually prepares for your future career success while Progressive does the opposite.

For these reasons, I think you should welcome the opportunity to debate Trad as much as possible.

General

Howdy! I’m a former competitor (middle/high school) and former head coach from AZ. I have experience competing/judging/coaching almost all speech and debate events except for policy.

I consider over-generalizing arguments to be harmful to the debate space. Running arguments along the lines of "X people are not suffering" or "no one has this problem anymore" will hurt your results. Use your clearest judgement when using absolute statements. Your perspective and evidence can only be stretched to an extent. For many conversations in s&d, we have the privilege of discussing topics we will never face; speak with that privilege in check.

Lastly, be kind and have fun! You've got this. Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions - we're all here to learn and grow!

Email: literallylittler@gmail.com

Congress

Impacts and weighing are crucial.

Engage and build. Engage with the round and build upon previous speeches by adding new information. Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

If the debate starts to repeat the same arguments, please move to question.

Happy to consider the PO in my ranking. PO must show a good knowledge of procedures and run a smooth chamber.

Lincoln-Douglas

I prefer traditional LD and am not a big fan of progressive LD. If you are going to run a Kritik, LARP, etc., I need to clearly understand why it is being used. I understand progressive LD jargon somewhat and will not automatically vote you down for a use of progressive LD, but I can’t guarantee I’ll catch everything perfectly. Particularly, if its use is unclear, it will affect my decision.

I look for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.

I do not flow cross ex - if you bring up an important point during CX, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about CX though and it could affect your speaker points.

Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.

Public Forum

I appreciate context and clarity with stats (econ is not my strongest suit). I look for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.

1st speaker and 2nd speaker are equally valuable and challenging roles to take on - for 1st speakers, I typically look for an ability to synthesize the debate and create a clear narrative of why your team is winning; for 2nd speakers, I typically look for direct clash and key voters in the final focus.

I do not flow crossfire - if you bring up an important point during crossfire, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about your crossfire though and it could affect your speaker points.

Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.

Experienced PF judge, First time LD judge

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good warranting and sound reasoning. Explain your evidence rather than just stating it.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad

Rounds should NOT have any theory arguments.

hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)

Harrison High School '21, Cornell University '25

for speech docs: sonali.nicola@gmail.com & harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (use both pls)

free palestine also I hate util

tl;dr pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

Accommodations & Accessibility

accessibility is very important to me! please tell me & ur opponent any accommodations u may need before the round. it's a good idea to share these in writing in case there is an accessibility issue in round that u want to make an arg about, but expressing them verbally is also great. PLEASE slow and clear ur opponent as many times as u need. please disclose any content areas u don't feel comfortable discussing before round (to me & ur opponent) and give content warnings

also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating u are, the better speaks you'll get. that doesn't mean let ur opponent walk all over u, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/

general notes

I graduated 3 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine w speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder). also, record your speeches for online debate (also not a bad idea to record them for in-person tbh)

stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest [edited for grammar]

• if u can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, u prob don't deserve to win

I pay attention to cx but don't flow it - very important for establishing links, violations, etc. I think if ur going to read any K or shell, you need to ask Qs in cx to solidify/get more links

I prob won't know the nuances of the topic so make sure to explain ur empirics and how ur theory of power functions in relation to the topic

I read mostly Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with. I read a lot of disability (Sick Woman Theory, Spoon Theory), gender rights, and racial equity args

I don't care if ur topical or not

I love trad debate! this is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.

I guess I'm fine judging LARPy stuff. I do hate util & extinction scenarios but I'll vote on it if there is literally no other option (please don't make me vote on extinction). there are just so many good arguments against util & Singer was a eugenicist. LARP debates are some of the most uninspiring debates I've ever had and ur speaks prob won't be amazing if the round is j LARP

if I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me. also, the majority of phil authors have expressly racist/sexist/homophobic views/their theories justify abuse of minorities, which I do not think belong in debate. I am very persuaded by reps Ks against phil authors.

the burden of proof is on u to explain ur theory to me I'm not gonna do research to understand u

don't read tricks & friv theory in front of me xoxo

I'm like 70% truth & 30% tech

• ur not gonna convince me the sky is green and I won't vote on it
• but following the structure of a T shell makes my life easier in terms of flowing and deciding

disclosure is prob good unless u have a good reason to not disclose. using the wiki is good unless u have a good reason not to use the wiki

Framework:

I love framework debates (NOT T-FW)! I think it's weird when the neg debater reads a FW and then doesn't engage w the aff's FW in the NC. don't do this in front of me - ur better off j conceding to the aff's FW and spending more time on different args

I also think it's a major missed opportunity to not spend a good amount of time in ur rebuttals extending ur FW and explaining 1. why ur winning FW and 2. why ur opponent has no offense under ur FW. if ur opponent is winning four neg offs that don't link to ur FW and ur winning FW, idc about the neg offs. spend time on that in ur speeches for good speaks

Specifics on Theory:

I will always prefer issues that would normally read as theory to be read as a K (with a drop the debater implication/alternative) because I have always been better at flowing and understanding Ks better than theory. but I know this is unpopular so I won't hold this against u if u don't do this.

if u are reading theory, make sure to read paradigm issues (seems obvious but you'd be surprised). I generally think reasonability and RVIs good unless u tell me otherwise. I don't think fairness exists, and I don't think debate is a game. I'd prefer if u impacted the shell to accessibility (I think that is the most important thing in debate, with education as a close second). I guess I'd vote on fairness if both sides agree that fairness is the end goal of the shell tho

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

a note on how I judge:

I always loved affirming when I debated. I love when aff debaters just go for the aff against a bunch of neg offs and use the args in the aff to take out the neg's offense. it shows that ur aff is really well written and thought-out and also shows that u know what ur case says and how to use it. if u can do this well, ur speaks will reflect how happy I am :)

ON THE OTHER SIDE don't do this if ur neg. there is no point in reading an NC and then using the same args u j read against the AC - it's a waste of time. diversify ur args

in conclusion pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

Not a lay judge.

Debated 1yr of PF and 1yr of LD.

Was 1 of the 2 co-captains for my high school debate team, AFBHS S&D.

I look for:

-Debate Jargon (key words)- “Void,” “Drop,” “Extend,” etc.

-Weighing Impacts and/or framework.

-Good CX.

-Quantifiable Statistical Evidence & Credible Examples.

-Clear Diction & Expressive Tone.

-Keep track of your own prep/speech/and cx time.

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com