I am a parent judge, and this is my first year judging. Please use good reasoning and evidence to back up your claims. I will be flowing your arguments, so don't speak too fast because I won't be able to understand you. Most importantly, be respectful and good luck!

TL;DR:

- Minimize dead time, make the debate enjoyable, be polite, and read whatever arguments make you enjoy debate.

- Speaker points linked to the quality of debating and not necessarily the quality of argument (but people often tend to debate better with better arguments).

- Will try my best to flow; please be clear on tags, names, and analytic paragraphs and give me pen time/an audible pause between sheets.

- Unfamiliar with positions outside of the realm of policy debate (e.g. permissibility, Kantianism, etc.), but will attempt to resolve them as fairly as possible.

- Don't understand arbitrarily excluding arguments from decisions (e.g. RVIs). If an argument is bad, then it shouldn't be hard to beat.

- Default to comparative worlds, competing interps, and judgekick.

----------

Did policy debate at Dulles HS from 2019 to 2023. I also dabbled a little bit in LD.

Largely similar to Anish Bhadani with a few exceptions for the "Things for Higher Speaks" section and a lower threshold for what constitutes an argument/pulling the trigger on bad, but winning, positions.

Feel free to ask for more specifics.

I am a parent judge, who has been judging for 2 years. I flow while judging.

I flow the rounds and appreciate reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.

I would suggest kids to not rush. Make eye contact with me and your opponent and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I place a high premium on logically structured arguments that are grounded in reliable data. While logical extensions of evidence are acceptable, I strongly favor arguments that demonstrate real-world relevance and societal impact. Purely philosophical or moral positions that lack broader validation hold less weight in my decisions.

I appreciate a clear and organized speaking style that emphasizes the flow of arguments. While I am comfortable with varying speeds, clarity of presentation is vital; speed should never compromise the ability of the opponent or myself to follow your arguments. Lastly, mutual respect between competitors is essential.

Key Considerations

• Evidence: Credible data and analysis form the bedrock of persuasive arguments.
• Logic: Arguments should exhibit clear reasoning and avoid logical fallacies.
• Impact: Demonstrate how an argument has meaningful consequences in the real world.
• Organization: Signposting and a well-structured flow make arguments easier to follow and evaluate.
• Respect: Debate should be a space for the respectful exchange of ideas, even in disagreement.

I look forward to seeing thoughtful and evidence-driven debates!

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop persuasive specific links to your desired argument strategy. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I think that the policy consequences and ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link.

9. Develop and compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

I prefer debates that incorporate policy analysis, where debaters use logical reasoning to support their arguments. Both the affirmative and negative sides bear the burden of proof, requiring a level of evidence to affirm or negate the resolution. Evidence must be backed by logical reasoning, with a preference for real-world examples over theoretical constructs.

Debaters should engage directly with their opponents' arguments, demonstrating critical thinking and analytical skills. I assess the effectiveness of cross-examination and rebuttal speeches based on how well debaters address their opponents' arguments and strengthen their own positions. Clarity and confidence are essential in speaker presentation, with an emphasis on effective communication rather than persuasive tactics.

I am open to unconventional argumentation styles and creative frameworks, willing to consider new approaches to debate. Bias awareness is crucial, and I am committed to evaluating arguments objectively, regardless of personal beliefs or preferences. Feedback can be provided orally or in writing, and can include a mix of argumentation analysis, and speaking improvement tips.

Lastly, I am very willing to adapt my judging approach based on the specific context of each debate round, including the skill level of debaters, the complexity of the resolution, and the format of the tournament.

Former competitor in LD

Don't like spreading

vote on values debating

I like logical arguments and don’t like debaters who are over technical.

I value professionalism above all. Maintain respectful and professional conduct throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks or offensive language. Wishing all debaters to be an "empathetic" leaders!!

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

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

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

I consider myself a novice judge, but I do have a PhD in Communication Studies from USC, and a daughter who has competed in various forms of debate for the last three years. Please discuss your frameworks, include road maps, and explain terms and jargon for me clearly. I absolutely hate spreading, but understand it is a part of the competition (especially for many of you in policy). I am good at weighing the strength of arguments, looking carefully at citations, and I do consider if an argument goes unaddressed when flowing. Respect towards your competitors is important, but feel free to attack their evidence or arguments. Let's have fun!

My email is michelle@gradis.us

My name is Abhay Harpale and I am affiliated with the Speech and Debate Club of Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon, CA.

This is my first year judging school debate competitions. I am a research scientist by profession. I have over 15 years of experience as a reviewer and judge of the scientific works submitted for review by other researchers, so judging is not entirely new to me.

I like fact-based arguments that are supplemented with documented evidence and opinions that are strengthened from the first principles and rational/logical reasoning delivery in a succinct but clear manner.

I am the LD coach at Loyola.

I have coached traditional and circuit LD for over 30 years and am comfortable judging most rounds—having judged at many Circuit tournaments, elim rounds, and even TOC finals. That said, I am NOT one of the coaches who is super familiar with ALL of the arguments that are currently in vogue. What does that mean? You make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you, because I happen to know what argument you’re trying to make. And I don’t have “preconceived” notions of how certain arguments are “generally” evaluated by circuit judges nowadays. What you’ll get is a fresh/independent/flow-based look by an impartial judge on those arguments. I don’t have the benefit of knowing how those debates are SUPPOSED to come out.

I can handle spread, but NOT if you’re incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable. If you want to include me on an email chain that helps.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and will generally NOT like to vote on undeveloped blips.

You should strive to express your thoughts and arguments with clarity, ensuring that your opponent comprehends the essence of your perspective. I strongly discourage spreading, as it will lead to an automatic loss (L). It is crucial that you support your arguments/claims with well-linked evidence to strengthen the credibility of your position.

Please email speech docs to: mei4judge@gmail.com

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

General:

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

Prog arguments:

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

VC/phil debate:

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

In the past, I really enjoyed my time on the high school debate team and summer debate institute at American University. Debating in Illinois had me adjusting to different styles, and I enjoy a well-laid out argument as much as the technical aspects. As for as judging standards, I am open minded (tabula rasa) and the wining team needs to show me clearly why I should vote for them.

I am a parent judge. I've been to several debates and been a LD judge. This is the first time I am judging PF. My recommendation to everyone is please speak at a moderate speed and refrain from spreading. Please give proper voters and don't forget to be respectful during cross! I am unfamiliar with theory arguments, so if you do run them, be prepared to explain really well! (He/him).

In addition, I will be following strictly the PF judging guidelines provided by the National Speech and Debate Association. They are:

1) Generalized, practical solutions should support a position of advocacy.

2) Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence may strengthen – but not replace – arguments.

3) Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and they will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen. A team should not be penalized for failing to understand his or her opponent’s unclear arguments.

4) Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. Team points provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative “quality of debating” by each side.

Please add me to the email chain: richardhgli@gmail.com

I am a former LD debater and a current parli debater at Berkeley (whose paradigm is still a WIP, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have)

But in general-

Tech >> Truth. I don’t mind theory or K’s, but make sure you articulate your K clearly if it’s obscure and niche. Please please please interact with your opponent’s arguments and show me good clash. Whatever happens, I will vote based on the flow, but your best bet is to make the decision easy for me (so collapse & weigh).

Hi! My name's Madi, and I competed in LD for all four years of high school. Feel free to run whatever you want as long as you explain it well, and I'm good with speed as long as your opponent is.

Hi! My name is Aditya Madaraju. My email is aditya.madaraju@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. I debated LD/Policy for 3 years at Dougherty Valley during HS, and I am now a sophomore at Berkeley. This paradigm is for LD/Policy if I am judging you for PuFo or something go to the bottom of the paradigm.

General

Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments. I still won’t vote for tricks. Email me at the address listed above if you have any questions that aren’t answered in this paradigm.

DAs

I like these and went for them most of the time during my career. 2NRs on the DA should have an overview and good impact calculus at the top, which makes it far easier for me to decide debates. If you’re kicking out of these, make sure that you concede defense properly to make sure you don’t accidentally concede a straight turn, because that can be tragic. If you’re going for a DA without a CP make sure to spend enough time on case in the 2NR as well.

CPs

I like these, and think they are underutilized a lot in debates. The 1NC on the counterplan ideally should have some solvency mechanism, be it a carded solvency advocate or a sentence explaining how it solves, but it’s not something that I care too much about.

Ks

If you are going to read a kritik, please try to read ones that are somewhat relevant to the topic. Please don’t read identity Ks or pomo in front of me.

Going for the K--Links to the plan are more persuasive but if the aff has terrible scholarship go ahead and read reps links, I’ll vote for them. 2NRs going for the K should thoroughly explain the K and not rely on buzzwords.

Answering the K--I am persuaded by arguments like framework and particularity, which I will vote for most of the time. Impact turns vs perm+link turns should be utilized depending on how your aff is oriented.

Topicality/Theory

Topicality--I like topicality debates and started going for this argument more during my senior year. These debates hinge on predictability; weighing is essential and evidence comparison is underutilized.

Theory--I won’t vote for frivolous theory. 3 condo or less is fine in policy, in LD I don’t really have a preference/default. PICs, advantage CPs, and some process CPs are probably good, while consult counterplans and some process CPs are bad.

Regarding disclosure, you should open source documents. Contact info being disclosed on the wiki and disclosing when asked is a bare minimum, but it’s better if you open source with cites on the wiki.

An evidence ethics violation (clipping, missing paragraphs/ellipses, starting or stopping in the middle of a paragraph, or mis-cited evidence) with proof is a stake the round issue and L 20 for whoever is wrong.

K AFFs

These are cheating and I will pretty much never vote for them. Framework is true.

Phil

I default util and modesty, and will have a hard time voting for anything other than these. However, if you are winning on the flow with another framework and have thoroughly explained your syllogism, I will still vote for you. No tricks.

Case Debate

Impact turns are highly underutilized, and good case debates are fun to watch. Spark is fine, but not wipeout.

PUFO

idrc what u do just read directly from cards don't cite them and make up random stuff and send all your cards that you read. otherwise its def an ev ethics violation. SAVIT BHAT's paradigm more accurately sums up my...thoughts on this issue.

Please make your arguments clear and speak fairly slow. Make sure to define the weighing mechanism and also explain the resolution clearly. The decision will be made based off of which side emphasizes IMPACTS. Do not spread. Good Luck !

If topicality / a permutation is run, please be clear about it. If you are not, then I won't be able to buy it. Don't be technical (running K's, etc. ) and be clear.

CLARITY is very important to me.

Do not spread. I am a first time judge, so please keep that in mind. Clear coherent arguments and good refutations is what I look for. Good luck.

Top 5 things I look for in round

1. VALUES-Tie everything back to your values!

2. Voter Issues-Tell me exactly why you know you have won this round

3. It is more important to me that you fully understand what you are talking about instead of using terms or concepts you would not be able to describe in your own words

4. A respectful, yet productive cross x

5. Organization and sign posting

Good luck, and I am excited to hear your debates! Remember, the most important thing about debate is the knowledge, experience, and confidence you gain from the activity, not necessarily the win :)

Pref:

1: Traditional Debate.

2: CP/DA.

3: K's~T/theory. explain it well.

4: Phil. Explain it VERY well.

5: Tricks.

Notes:

email: natashasachar@berkeley.edu

Hello! I'm Natasha (she/her). I attended Cary Academy and debated LD all four years, and dabbled in Worlds and PF.

What I like: Probability>magnitude. Debate is about communication-- I need to understand what you're running. Analysis, persuasion, nuance > card dump.

I debated a lot of trad and sometimes progressive at more circuity tournaments, but that was limited to cp/da and a K once or twice. If you're going to spread, go at ~50/60%.

If your opponent is trad (and does not know progressive debate) and you're not, I would highly suggest you take a trad approach to that round.

"High level" phil, theory, etc. needs to be explained VERY well.

The round will stop if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, transphobic. Please include content warnings where they are needed.

I am not flowing cross.

Feel free to email me after the round for a copy of the flow, general comments, or just about debate in general--I'd love to chat. Also, feel free to ask questions before the round.

I will only vote on disclosure if there's CLEAR CLEAR abuse in the round. I think in many cases reading disclosure is REALLY bad for inclusivity in the space.

My Debate Preferences:

• Spreading is OK only if all points are enunciated clearly.
• Arguments over technicalities.
• Stay on topic.
• OK to be competitive but always be respectful.

Background: I debated for March High School for four years in LD. I competed and placed regionally & nationally. I judged debate tournaments in both high school and university.

I attended the University of Texas at Austin ( Class of 22') for Computer Science and Business.

Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.

Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ sharmasej@gmail.com. I do not like Disclosure cases. It is not a requirement in NSDA to disclose and thus have a hard time entertaining these cases.

Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because of my personal dislike for it.

NOTE: I highly prefer staying topical and do not like cases that revolve around debate meta.

---

LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well

K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.

T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.

Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.

I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

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

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Hi! My name is Shreya, and I debated Public Forum at Mission San Jose HS from 2015-19. I'm going to list my preferences below, but please be aware that I'm not overly familiar with the structure and nuance of events outside of PF and it may take me a moment to adapt! If you have any questions or concerns before your round, please feel free to email me at annam.shreya@gmail.com.

1) I am, generally speaking, going to judge tech over truth. That said, any argument that is sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, or similarly offensive will not be tolerated. I will drop any argument that advocates for genocide, ethnic cleansing, or anything of the sort.

2) Feel free to run Ts and Ks, but please be detailed in your explanations of them! I'm likely not going to know them beforehand, but I'm very happy to judge on a theoretical level, and I'm familiar with a relatively large body of philosophy.

3) I can keep up with most speeds, but I'm not preferential to spreading! I will evaluate clarity higher, and I'll let you know if I need you to slow down or am otherwise having issues understanding you.

4) Structurally, try to keep things neat! The cleaner my flow is, the more straightforward the RFD is going to be.

5) Be kind to your fellow debaters, poor etiquette will cost you in speaks!

For any other preferences, feel free to ask before round start! Good luck, and have fun!

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will make my best effort to make a decision that makes sense. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Very bad for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things:Not the best so don't blaze through analytics. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.

Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.

I am a new parent judge who is very lay

Make arguments clear, concise, and compelling.
I would prefer a slow conversational pace to prioritize clarity.
Highly discourage any tricks, extensive phil, extensive k's, or any unreasonable arguments.

I will be judging your logic, speaking skills, knowledge, and responses.

Giving clear voters and being organized will be very helpful.

My email is crossing66@gmail.com feel free to make an email chain.

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.