2023 — New Haven, CT/US
Varsity Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.
Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)
I am a current Freshman at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program. I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.
I have taught at camps such as TDC & NSD
*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (K debater things) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.
Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS
Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland HS LA; & St John TI
TLDR: What I don't like
1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle
2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.
3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.
TLDR: What I Like/Can Evaluate Better (Prefs)
K (T or Non-T) -1
Phil (High Phil is more of a 3)-2-3
LD & CX Specific
DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)
This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:
[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward
[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address
[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.
[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.
I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.
Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.
Kritiks & TFW/Topicality
K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean
K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L
Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.
*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place
**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.
Tricks (LD Specific)
I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.
[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low
[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue
[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is
I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it. If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.
Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.
If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament
If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking
If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed
If you are 28.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect
I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.
Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571
Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)
World Schools Specific
A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens
B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs
C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.
Public Forum Specific
Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.
If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.
If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.
Speaking Events (Specific)
Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.
Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].
I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!
All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
Please include me on email chain if there is one firstname.lastname@example.org
I’m a college senior at Texas A&M University who might be a bit rusty now.
My coach in HS was Stormee Massey who is now at Vancouver Debate Academy she did policy for 9 years and I used to watch her judge policy outrounds.
I am good with speed if you do not send a doc just make sure you are clear. I have extensive flows with each card written to help flow.
Also make sure if you run anything progressive your opponent knows/understands whatever your K, CP, DA, etc is doing (mainly this is for a progressive v traditional but still)
I did a little bit of PF but mostly LD in High School. I typically ran Ks both aff and neg or Theory or T. I also did run DAs and CPs but not as often.
LD: I do not care what you run, run what you want it is y'alls debate rounds and I want y'all to run what you are comfortable with and I will flow accordingly.
If you are neg and run theory I would like to also see you prove affs arguments are wrong along with being abusive because unless aff is straight up abusive on what neg can and can not do I will not typically vote off a neg T shell by itself.
Please have framework to give impacts.
- Framework: if y'all have same value and criterion/standard do not waste your time, if y'all have different ones do not spend too much time, give me a quick why yours matters more and I should weigh under your framework because then move on.
Wiki whatever does not matter to me. When I debated I used an empty flashdrive I named tortillas and passed it around the room. As long as you are clear what evidence you are reading who it is from and when that is what matters.
PF: I am good with like everything it is y'alls debate rounds run your cases how you want and I will flow accordingly just make sure you extend through each speech.
If you have any issues at all just get my attention and if you have any other questions just ask.
Cypress Bay 2020
I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season
I'd like to be on the chain :) email@example.com
1 - K/Performance, esp high theory (but I also think T is true)
1-2 - Dense idptx positions
1-2 - Policy v Policy
3 - Phil you can explain well
4 - Theory heavy positions, besides T
5 - Dense phil you can't explain very well
Public forum stuff is near the bottom
Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?
You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.
Non T positions are cool, extra T and fxT are chill absent theory. I promise you can read whatever you want.
If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.
Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high school. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications to me. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.
The above is still true, especially the 1AC theory stuff, but after several months of doing prefs for my Cypress kids... there are a lot of people on the circuit now that are outright hostile towards phil stuff, or even tricks debate and this is kind of disappointing to me. Read the arguments that you want to read in front of me, but you should know that there are certain levels of explanation that you need to hit for me to vote on something - the brightline for voting on a dropped 1AC spike is going to be a lot higher for me than a fully fleshed out 1NC DA + case answers.
- Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Claire Rung, Rob Fernandez
- Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else
- Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)
- The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
- - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
- - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
- - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
- - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.
- - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
- - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
- - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
- - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
- - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.
1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you
2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along
3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters
4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r
5. Do your own thing and do it well
6. Don't be afraid to ask questions
7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.
8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.
- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun
Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo
Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard
Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon
A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file
A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT
Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file
Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors
Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6
I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie
Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up
Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune
The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff
Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense
Please don't dodge questions in cross
I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.
I'm okay with speed.
I'm good with technical arguments.
Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.
Update Blue Key 2022
you're definitely going to have to do a lot to convince me that phil is worth voting on. it's not an argument that i spent or currently spend time thinking about. Probably leave the weird stuff at home, but you're even going to have to slow down and explain kantian arguments to me.
See update at the top:much of this is still true.
also; theory. Totally cool with topicality/framework, but theory debates get messy really easily for me. Please explain why your model of debate is actually net-better than the alternative.
This is perpetually going to get longer and longer as I see things that I need to address. I'll shorten it eventually,
Hi! I am Regina and I am currently a freshmen at Columbia University. I debated LD in High school, qualifying for the TOC in my Junior Year. I was primarily a K debater, reading Set Col and Queerpess although I did enjoy the general LARP debate.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer speech drop - please set it up before the round starts and have your documents ready to go.
For spreading - If I have to say clear more than twice, I am dropping your speaks
Arguments I enjoy most when judging (in order from most to least):
- Tricks - strike me, won’t vote on it
tech > truth as LONG AS YOU HAVE WARRANTS
sept/oct 23 update - I am not super familiar with the topic so please don’t abbreviate + clearly articulate link to impact for LARP debates
IF YOU ARE READING KANT in a kant vs util debate - please explain the arguments to me like I am 5, I want to vote for you but if I dont understand it I cannot vote on it
If you are in any way racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc in round I WILL drop you with the lowest speaks I can give you.
Disclosure - I don’t have very strong opinions on this, but running disclosure and your opponent dropping it is not an auto win for you (especially if your opponent is a novice, be better and beat them on substance).
K aff vs T-fw - I am ngl K affs were my favorite thing in the world to run so the neg has a slight uphill battle. However I have a high threshold for the aff defending their interpretation of topic/debate, so you have to be able to defend it.
(Below is stolen from Rose that I strongly agree with)
An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits on this - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not "dropped an argument" until you have actually MADE one
Evidence quality matters a bunch, I'll probably read evidence in close debates, and I won't fill in the blanks for your incomplete highlighting. I would prefer well-warranted analytics to bad, under-highlighted cards.
Experience: I'm a student at Yale who did LD for 4 years in high school. I primarily competed on the local level, and at a few circuit tournaments. I also have competed in Public Forum for a year. I have judged several rounds on my local circuit in Florida, and at the 2022 Yale Invitational.
Speed: Reasonable. Decently faster than conversational speed, but everything should be clear.
Weighing: Do it, especially at the end. I don't like voting on things you decline to mention in the final speeches.
Speaks: I generally start at a 28.3. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.
Brand new arguments in final speeches will be ignored and ding your speaks.
Be kind to your opponent. We can all tell when you are not.
Do not run racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. arguments.
Arguments I like: Unless otherwise mentioned in my next section, I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you want to run. I’m most familiar with Policy, CPs, DAs, and more traditional arguments, but have also run Phil, Ks and theory in several rounds. Just make sure you explain your points clearly, and extend your arguments across speeches. Be sure to collapse and weigh in your last speech.
I don’t like: Blippy arguments and tricks. Dense arguments that neither I nor your opponent understands due to your intentional obfuscation. Being mean to your opponent (e.g. rudeness, or spreading out an obvious novice) will likely result in a low speak win at best. Clearly racist, xenophobic, etc. arguments will be a loss. Meme cases are allowed, but my threshold for your opponent responding to them is fairly low, unless both debaters decide to run meme cases.
Speed: I’m pretty comfortable with speed for all but the fastest debaters IRL. If the debate is on zoom, you might want to consider some combination of speaking slower than normal, signposting well, or sending the doc. If your internet is questionable at times, I strongly encourage you to record with your phone.
Email Chain: talk to me before the round starts if you will be spreading.
Speaks: I generally average a 28.5. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.
My qualification is that I have a Ph.D degree in Political Economy from The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) , and I am alert to all current social, political, and economic issues around the world.
Tech>Truth. Your argument does not need to always be the truest thing, and I value strategy the most.
No spreading for me. I rather you make clear, convincing arguments with good evidence and extend them well in rebuttals. No tricks.
Respect everyone in the round.
I am looking for good sportsmanship in debate.
Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP
Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. I would strongly prefer email over NSDA Classroom fileshare, and please title the chain as so: "Tournament Year + Name - Round # - _____ vs. _____ (Judge)"
If I'm judging you in Policy: email@example.com
If I'm judging you in LD: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights and predominately coach policy: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.
- Policy: 1
- T/Theory: 1-2
- Phil: 2
- Kritik (identity): 2
- Kritik (pomo): 3
- Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27 and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.
- Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
- Tech > Truth
- I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
- I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
- It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad.
- I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
- If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
- I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
- You don't get to insert rehighlighting; if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it.
- Signpost please. I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time.
- Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.
- Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
- You should have be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
- Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
- I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
- If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.
- I default to competing interpretations. I'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer an explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate. If you just ask me to intuitively evaluate the shell without an explanation of what that constitutes, my aversion to intervention will likely lead me to gut check to competing interpretations.
- I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
- You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't magically operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
- Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments or I will likely miss something.
- Disclosure is good. However, I do coach both sides of this debate. Read it if you'd like, just don't be mean about it and be prepared to defend your performance if your opponent is clever.
- "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
- I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.
- I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature. It is in your best interests to keep your speeches well-structured so they are easy to follow.
- Pretty good for policy v k debates. Less good for k v k debates.
- I especially appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Good K debates typically include quotes from lines in your opponent's evidence/advocacy with an explanation of why those are additional links.
- I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. I have voted for both framework and k affs.
- I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
- You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
- Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.
- Default epistemic confidence.
- Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 8.5 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
- Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll almost certainly miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
- If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS random analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.
- I'll yell "clear" or "slow" once but that means I already missed something. Honestly though, it's not uncommon for me to be so preoccupied with trying to keep up that I forget to call clear or slow.
- A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
- I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
- I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.
- I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get high speaks in front of me, however:
- I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
- Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
- Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
- Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced then.
- If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
- As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.
First time parent judge, please don't go too fast or use any jargon really.
Send docs please: email@example.com
Stuyvesant '23 - mostly read theory, policy, and kant
I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy.
1: theory / policy / kant / trad
2: soft left affs / most other phil / setcol / cap
4: other ks / tricks (I just never really read them or had those debates)
5 / strike: psycho / baudrillard / deleuze / similar arguments (sorry but I don't understand LOL)
Don't be mean to newer or less experienced debaters. Everyone should learn from the round!! :D
Bronx update: +0.5 speaks if you bring me snacks or can (successfully) explain the steady states of the solow model to me :]
I will be considering based on quality over quantity arguments and prefer a conversational pace and the avoidance of overly technical debate jargon.
Conversational pace: A good pace for a conversation is one that allows for all participants to comfortably express their ideas and thoughts, while also engaging in active listening and responding to one another.
Quality over quantity arguments: It is important that arguments are well-reasoned and supported by evidence, rather than simply being lengthy or repetitive. I will consider the depth and thoughtfulness of the arguments presented, rather than the quantity.
Avoidance of debate jargon: Using jargon or specialized language can create barriers to understanding and hinder effective communication.
Overall, I will consider the balance and flow of the conversation, and how well the participants are able to effectively communicate and engage with one another in a respectful and constructive manner.
UPDATED FOR YALE 2023
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.
You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.
I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. Lateness is disrespectful, let’s start the round on time.
If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.
DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!
I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.
I err Tech over Truth
Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.
- If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks
2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks
5/6 - tricks, phil
Framework (Value/Value Criterion):
With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.
I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.
Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.
I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.
New affs good
Consult CPs bad
Vague alts bad
Delay CPs are fine
but hey maybe you can prove me wrong
I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous
I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.
Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.
Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently
Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.
Note on Politics DAs
I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not under. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.
- Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
- I am super open to trix bads theory
- Just have a substantive debate. Please.
- Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
- some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
- I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig
I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.
I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.
I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.
These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.
I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.
If you use flex prep your bad at flowing
If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.
- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic
Same as above
- Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
- I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
- I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad
- Same as LD
- Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
- I like numbering of args and clear signposting
Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR.
Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (email@example.com).
Hello, I am Juan Cruz from Bryan High School.
I am a parent judge, but have judged on and off for about a year. I am, however, new to "progressive" styles of debating. So keep that in mind.
Heres my system of thought.
1- I know and can understand
2- sort of confusing, but i will vote on
3- 50/50, explain it to me like I am a child
4- run at your own risk
Traditional style (value, criterion, contentions) - 1
Policy affs- 2
PIC, Consult, PIK, etc.- 4
Cap K- 2
Other Ks- 3
Hi! I am a second-year student in college, currently coaching my high school's team. I did Speech in HS. I am majoring in education, and I'm particularly interested in English/Philosophy, as well as child psychology. Any questions or concerns, including email chains, you can contact me via- firstname.lastname@example.org
Note that I have had less than 2 years of experience learning/coaching debate. However, I am familiar with a good amount of PF/LD jargon. That being, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant). I really don't have specifics for both sides but here:
Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.
ALSO- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. But, I am still fine if you spread, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. If I cannot hear you, I will put my hand and signal for you to slow.
Accommodation Note: Speaking of, PLEASE disclose to your opponents about anything, whether you are more of a prog/trad debater, if you spread, etc. It makes things easier, especially if you go against someone who has a disability. Debate is an educational activity, and should be accessible for everyone :)
Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. Even with spreading I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.
- Also, with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just summarize.
I do flow most of the debate, including cross-ex, just keep that in mind.
If there are any specific questions you have before a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.
If you want to look further into what I prefer- most of what I judge off of is on W. Kay's paradigm.
email@example.com for the email chain
I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year, and I'm now the Director of LD at VBI and an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDers.
Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.
Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).
Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.
Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.
Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.
I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.
Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.
Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.
Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.
Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).
Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.
Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.
Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.
I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).
I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.
Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.
Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.
I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.
I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.
I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.
I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.
While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.
Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.
Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.
See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.
For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.
For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.
Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.
K v K debates are a big question mark for me.
Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.
I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.
1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.
There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.
Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.
Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.
Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.
Throw me in the email chain if applicable
I'm a very lay judge. Please speak in a normal fashion (no spreading). Traditional > Progressive.
Yes to email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Rohit (he/him) and I debated for Monta Vista High School from 2019-2023 in LD, gaining 5 career bids to the TOC and qualling my junior and senior year. My preferred debating style in high school was more towards policy debate, as I mainly competed on the west coast, but I believe I’d be pretty fair in evaluating most styles of debate. As I judge more, the prefs below should become less and less relevant.
Quick pref guide for LD
1. LARP-style args - cps, das, plan
1: Good topic specific t debates
2: kritiks - IR, Setcol, Afropess,
1-2: Topical Phil Debates
3-4: Pomo, High theory
3-4: Tricks, blippy incoherent theory,
Speaks are at my discretion so don’t ask for higher speaks in round- ill try to average at a 28.5
Do what you do / look at the LD paradigm. If I’m judging at a traditional tournament and you’re running a K against a novice team - you might win but your speaks will not.
Yes roadmaps keep it brief
I'm cofortable with kritiks, theory, and speed - please send docs
do contextual analysis -
Weighing is important - and I don't just mean magnitude, timeframe, or scope what I mean is actual analysis to why if you win your argument it's more important/turns your opponents internal links
hello hello! i’m avery (they/he/she) + i’m a sophomore at yale studying the history of science, medicine, + public health. i will try to keep it short but you are welcome to ask as many questions as you need at the beginning of the round. my goal is to foster a comfortable and accessible environment that gives you and your opponent an equal opportunity to go in depth on a critical topic.
a little about me + my debate experience, + me as a judge:
-i did ld + world schools for 4 years. for ld, my experience is primarily traditional, but i have debated on the national circuit now and again. i have judged quite a bit before, but it's been a minute since i've done it formally for a virtual tournament.
-because i have a more traditional ld background, you are welcome to spread, but i am not as used to flowing spreading as other judges. i will leave it to you to decide how fast you would like to go, but i will be able to keep up best if you speak relatively quickly/a more traditional speed, but not necessarily spreading. your decision one way or the other will only affect my judging insofar as i may have a harder time catching more of what you’re saying at times.
-unless your arguments/evidence are problematic/discriminatory or obviously untrue, what is said in the round is what i will judge with. i will not insert personal feelings/opinions and everything you say will be taken into account to the best of my ability. with that being said, my top priority is a sustainable and supportive round space, and racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or otherwise problematic/discriminatory arguments will result in an automatic loss.
-if you have a weird or fun or kind-of-a-stretch argument, feel free to go for it! but if you choose to take this route, please explain each aspect of your argument and why it matters in detail. i am open to the many ways you might want to approach your side of the debate, but i will not vote for something that wasn’t made clear to me in the round. tricks probably aren’t the best idea lolll.
-dropped + extended arguments matter, but above all else what matters is what you’re advocating for (i.e. if one opponent emphasizes and explains a great point very well but drops a more minor argument, i will not automatically give you a loss for that drop). throughout the round but especially as you’re wrapping up your arguments, pleaseeee weigh + emphasize where you would like my attention to be on the flow. incorporate your side’s instructions for my judging into what you argue itself.
-speaker points: my average is usually a 28-29. if you’re reading this from the yale invitational, judges have been given the ability to give low-point wins and speaker points in tenths, as well as a guide for how we should award those points. 28-29 is the solidly good standard in that guide as well. “good” speaking for me will have much more to do with what you’re saying, how clearly you organize it, and how concisely you’re able to deliver what you’re saying, rather than presenting like you’re hosting a ted talk.
-cameras on is a vibe and lets you be more present in the round with your judge/opponent, but if for any reason you need to have it off, i trust you to make that call and it will not affect how i judge you by any means. i switched it up for various reasons when i was debating - we’ve allll been there with the virtual stuff.
have fun + be proud of yourself! and, of course, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. see you in round (:
Southlake Carroll '23
Hi I’m Samhith. I did LD and PF in highschool. I don't have any strong preferences on what you can and can't read in a round. For context though, I read mostly policy and kritikal arguments in LD and theory arguments in PF. The most important things to me are judge instruction and being clear. I’m not the greatest flower ever so make sure you slow down on important parts of the round but otherwise speed is ok. I prefer arguments that are well thought out and warranted as opposed to blippy. Please weigh, the earlier the better. Disclosure is good.
Speaker points are based off of how knowledgeable I feel you are about the topic and how good your strategy is. I will also give higher speaks if you send cut cards and analytics during rebuttals.
Have fun and let me know if you have any questions before the round!
I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.
I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.
I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.
Kritiks + K Affs
I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.
- Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
- I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
- Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.
I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!
- DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
- Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
- I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it
I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.
- Don't be sketchy!
- Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.
T + Theory
Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.
- I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
- The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
- I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate
I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.
- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks
- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates
I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.
- I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
- I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.
I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.
- You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
- I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time
Speaks + Misc.
I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.
- Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
- Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
- For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following
I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)
Put me on the Email Chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.
About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.
Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.
AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.
Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.
Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.
Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.
Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.
Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.
LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.
I am a LAY JUDGE. No plans, no counterplans, no spreading, no kritiks, no theory, no topicality,
Please weigh your arguments in summary. Warrant all claims. No paraphrasing, you HAVE to have cards Present your arguments clearly. Please clearly state if opponent has conceded an argument, I will not evaluate arguments you do not explicitly make. I am a blank slate judge, so do your best to make a persuasive case and respond to all of your opponents arguments. You are responsible to track your prep time.
hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i debated for niceville high school in nwfl & am currently a first-year at columbia
been trying to shorten this because my good friend liam told me they didn't like paradigms that are too long. this should give you the general idea, but if you have any questions just ask me :)
email: email@example.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room
*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (firstname.lastname@example.org)
*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things
k/performance - 1
theory - 1
friv theory/trix - 1/2
LARP - 3
phil - 4/5
just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it
tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them
in-round safety is my highest priority; that means i'm down to stop the round even if neither debater says anything about what i'm perceiving as a safety violation (i.e., repeated, salient misgendering). similarly, you will lose the round with awful speaks if you are making it an unsafe space for me or anyone else in the room
easy ways to get higher speaks with me:
bring me an energy drink
i'll try to do a prn check before round for safety reasons but if i don't, remind me
drop ur spotify and i'll adjust your speaks by somewhere between -1 and 1 based on how much i like your music taste
ADD A SCREENSHOT OF YOUR SPOTIFY WRAPPED FROM THIS YEAR
tell me a fun fact about destin or niceville florida and if i didn't know it already i'll bump your speaks. emphasis on fun fact, not like, the year they were founded
be nice -- you won't lose for not listening to this, but it might be reflected in your speaks
last year i almost exclusively read kritiks rooted in identity (queer/trans*, fatness) literature, so i'm best at evaluating this debate. non-identity ks are also cool
lbl > overviews w/ a ton of embedded clash
for the t-fw debate, counterinterps are cool and so are turns. also carded tvas are way more convincing
i'm stupid and don't understand a lot of pomo stuff -- feel free to read it, but please be thorough in explaining the lit base
no theory is friv but there are some norms that are way less intuitive for me. that being said i'll still evaluate them if you're winning the theory debate
weigh between standards within the context of the round and u will prob like the rfd more
tell me why theory uplayers so that i can vote on it
implicate things on the flow and clean things up if they're messy
LARP(policy) and lay:
didn't read much of this, but i'll be fine evaluating it as long as you do the work for me. similarly, i'm not going to look at ev unless you tell me to
i never had much fun with lay debate but if thats your jam go for it
be nice to novices & lay debaters at circ tournaments for the first time
i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze
PLEASE COME ON TIME AND START THE ROUND ON TIME - we are all busy and don't want to wait 15 minutes for an email chain, speaks will directly reflect this preference, you will also get better speaks if you can end early or take less prep but please don't do so at the expense of speech quality
Mandatory things about debate so you know I'm somewhat qualified to judge
Debated for Lexington HS from 2018- 2022
Competed on nat circuit from 2019-2022, got 15 career bids, qualled to TOC junior + senior year, won a couple tournaments, deep elims of a handful of others (not that any of this actually affects how good judges are but I get why it's useful to know).
TLDR; run whatever you want, I'll evaluate it as best as I can, I wont refuse to evaluate anything and I will try my best to evaluate everything, below is mostly a list of familiarity with arguments and rants about debate
Trix - 2 (if you read actual warrants you are fine but I'm not gonna make the argument for you)
Phil - 2/3 (good if you want to actually debate, if you use it as an excuse to do trix debate but with less warranting I will be unhappy) please acc explain your phil some of it is dense
K- 2/3 (Becoming more comfortable but still have less experience)
I have run most arguments from Deleuze K, to skep NC's, friv theory, Policy, and also debated at several local tournaments. That being said I mostly read theory as my A strat, tricks occasionally when I could, and policy and phil in other rounds
Please add me to the email chain email@example.com
I will flow any speed, but I reserve the right to say clear or slow 3x, after that point if I don't catch something I consider it to be on you. I am generally not great at flowing, I am fine for most things, but if you are spreading at 500wpm and extempt 'evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR' or some other blippy 1 liner that you expect to win off of, if I didn't flow it then I will not vote off of it.
Statements do not have to be true, but they do have to have a warrant, the warrant does not have to be true, but it does have to exist. I will vote off blatantly false statements if there is an extended warrant and impact. Truth and tech trade off which each other, the more true you are the less tech you need to be and vice versa.
Attacks on other people are not arguments and thus don't belong in the space
I default no judge kick CP's
I am not voting on evidence ethics. Stop being scared of debating. Run it as a shell or get me to reject the arg, if you stake the round you will lose.
I will not evaluate 'give me 30 speaks', I will give you what you deserve. I will probably just drop your speaks for this
Call-out affs are not real arguments. I will not vote on call out affs, even if you can prove that the debater is bad in some way, it's not my job to evaluate if a debater is a bad person and I won't do it
I will time prep if I remember which I will try to, please don't steal prep, its not fair or allowed
if you post round, do it respectfully, ask questions, I mess up sometimes, if you get your coach to come and yell at me, I will just get up and leave
I won't read evidence unless you ask me to do so, and if you ask me to do so, please say what I am looking for i.e. 'their impact card has no evidence that global warming is reverse causal' is good but 'their evidence is bad' will not cause me to go back
I will sometimes close my eyes while I'm flowing, I'm not asleep, just helps me concentrate
Presumption goes to the side of least change (very easy to change), permissibillity negates (harder to change just bc most arguments as to why it affirms don't actually justify it)
Theory is CI, DTD, no RVI
All of these can be changed very very easily but just making some type of argument about it, please dont make me use these defaults
Go for it, have well researched positions that you can understand well, just please don't be boring. If it's the same generic Aff that 100 other people have on this topic, and there is nothing about yours that makes it unique, I will be sad. I will still pick you up even if it's not interesting but I will probably give you worse speaks as a result of my not being invested in the debate.
I don't understand why people don't make more analytical turns on case, just because it's a Policy debate doesn't mean that you need a card that takes 30 seconds to read when you can say the same thing without a card in 10.
CP's: go for it, I like all CP's
I think analytical CP's that intuitively solve for all of the Aff's offense are underused, solvency advocates are probably not needed to make a CP legitimate
I like cheaty memey CP's and they are underused as well e.g. space elevators
If you insert evidence, you should read it, if you are pulling specific lines I think its your burden to read it, if you want me to read their evidence, tell me what specific things to look for, I am not going to read every single line of the article before making my decision. I.e. 'read their evidence - it doesn't isolate Russian aggression as the IL to war, it says bear attacks cause war' is good whereas 'read their evidence it's bad' is not something I am going to do.
Condo is prolly good unless you use it in a way that is explicitly to take advantage of condo, solvency advocates probably aren't needed, Pics are pretty neutral, process + agent CPs r probably bad. (Change my mind through debate, these are very light defaults)
Go for it, I am familiar with the rough ideas of most K literature, but I will not use prior knowledge to evaluate your K
The further out of debate I get the more I enjoy these BUT you should know your lit, good K debate is teaching me about models of the world and explaining why and how violence occurs, if I leave the round feeling as though I have learned something your speaks will be accordingly boosted
I personally never read that many K's, but I have hit most of them, and now have experience teaching or being taught a majority, so feel pretty good evaluating them
HOWEVER, if you read some new K that is 99% incoherent, and your explanation of the K in the last speech is not sufficient for me to understand the K then I will not vote on it.
Please don't give a 4 minute 2NR overview to the K that does a bunch of implicit work everywhere, I would much prefer a brief overview then LBL, I am unlikely to give implicit clash on either side, but this will hurt you more if your work is OV heavy and relatively light on the LBL
I don't like death good, I will vote on it but I just don't find myself very convinced by it and I think ethically debaters probably shouldn't read it.
I would prefer if you have framing mechanism and that you weigh it against theory or the aff framing mechanism. However if your ROB is something that is basically just a trick, you know what this means, I don't understand how its good for debate. Your ROB should not be 'I auto win' because this would seem to rely on you winning debate bad or ontology to justify the ROB at which point you have already won.
If you are going to go for the alt as a floating PIK, indicate it in the 1NC please
I love it, I think it's very strategic, rhese are the most entertaining debates to judge a lot of the time
Friv theory is good, however the more frivolous the shell is the more frivolous of a response I will accept on the shell
Read unique shells that I haven't seen before or old shells with new standards and you will make me happy and probably get better speaks, it can be a frivolous shell, friv shells that are new are often hard to respond to which is good for you
I will vote off a RVI on pretty much any theory shell, even if it's just an I meet on theory as long as you justify it
Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is also probably good
If you read reasonability please give some sort of way for me to know what you think is reasonable 'good is good enough' is not sufficient to justify reasonability
That being said, theory debates with 5 shells and 2 RVI's floating around get messy quickly, weigh between aff theory and neg theory, fairness and education, theory and RVI's, etc.
Go for it but please read this whole section, don't just assume I want to sit through this. People are not reading this and getting bad speaks lol, debate tricks well or don't do it, don't be messy
I ran these positions and generally find them either interesting and entertaining or completely a waste of everyones time. At their best it causes tons of critical thinking, line by line arguments, and interesting weighing interactions. At its worst its two people grasping at complex positions reduced to 1 line blips which are both fully conceded and I have to intervene or flip a coin
Yes Tricks are stupid and usually bad arguments but that means it should be fairly easy to answer them and I don't get why people don't just answer them. IMO if you can't do lbl and so drop a trick that would be on you.
Don't say 'whats an a priori' in cx, I will drop your speaks, you know what it is
If you read tricks but you don't understand them then it's probably not strategic to just bombard them with tricks
If you cannot explain the paradoxes that you read, I will not rely on prior knowledge to evaluate them
If you read evaluate x after x speech I will wait until after the 2AR to see if I ought to evaluate after x speech and if you have won the argument at that point I will backtrack and evaluate the round as needed.
Like with all things- the blippier the trick is, the less you need to respond to it in order to disprove it
Tricks need warrants, otherwise you can just say 'no warrant' and move on
This 'no 2N I meets thing' lacks the warrant for an argument, you still need a violation for the theory shell and if you don't have it you will lose idrc if the 2N isn't allowed to make I meets. Also it seems like you could do this and read a very questionable shell that they probably don't violate which would possibly be a strategic way to read this argument.
If you read something without a warrant I will not vote on it, full stop.
The worst arguments I have ever seen in debate are probably trix, if you read these types of argument VERY REAL CHANCE YOUR SPEAKS ARE TANKED. I consider this fair warning to be harsh.
T vs. K affs
I lean for T in these debates due to my experiences as a debater and the side I was usually on, but I have nothing against K affs, have and would continue to vote for them
I think that when done well K affs can be strategic and good for the space, but that if you read a K aff and are unprepared for T that you will probably lose
If your K aff or Frwk block is just OV generic stuff from 2012, I will be very unhappy
Your T 2NR should respond to case, if you don't it's very likely that you will lose the case debate and then lose the framework debate
I start at a 28.5 and move from there, below 26 is reserved for fully offensive things. The speaks you receive are relative to the pool you are in, e.g. a 29.5 at a local is different than a 29.5 at TOC.
Speaks are a reflection of not only how good you are but how happy you make me, if I am happy then you will be happy with your speaks, if I am sad than you will not be happy. Resolving good debates that are close is very very different than judging bad debates that are messy and hopefully you can draw that distinction.
If you sit down early or take less prep I'll give you higher speaks :)
If you read something that excludes a novice or lay debater from engaging, and it is clear that you knew they could not engage and yet you still continue with this strategy, you will get a L 20. For example, if your opponent reads a case at a conversational speed and then you spread a skep and Baudrillard NC and it is clear they don't know what is happening during CX and their 1AR, then you will lose. I don't care if you are ahead on the flow, you should not have to read arguments they can't engage with in order to win. You should try to speak at a max roughly 50% faster than them. I will not drop you unless it is a case of blatant abuse, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you read a tech AC without realizing they can't engage, you should 1) help them understand in cx and 2) dont go for the tricky parts of the T
Debate what you feel comfortable with if you are a lay debater or novice, I think these debates are good and definitely an important part of learning to debate
Don't have justice vs. morality debates, they are the same thing and picking one over the other makes ultimately no difference
I find value based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy to be most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine as long as it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and ultimately the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I'm familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate that both an expert and a lay-judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well paced delivery, sign posts, strong framing and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.
1 Value Framework/Phil
2 Policy/ K's
1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.
2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.
3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.
4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)
If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.
parent judge truth > tech - pls send case in file share better for me to follow along
dont be racist transphobic homophobic etc thx
Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021.
Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well
I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.
assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon
One winner and one loser
Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.
How to Win:
You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.
How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:
-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.
-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."
-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.
-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.
-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.
I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.
That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.
Slow down on:
1. Advocacy/CP Texts
2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)
3. Theory Interps
4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)
I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.
-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.
-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.
-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."
- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case
- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.
- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.
- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.
- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.
- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.
Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:
Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen
I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.
The email chain should be formatted as follows:
Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]
Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.
Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.
I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.
Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.
Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.
I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".
I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.
For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC).
Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.
I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.
Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.
I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.
Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks:
- Trade me a Legendary in Pokémon Go that I don't already have (but I won't tell you the ones I have) = auto 30
- Bring me food (boba, coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, Monster, C4), anything with caffeine) +1.0
- Correctly guess my astrological element +0.1, zodiac sign +0.2, and +0.3 and +0.4 for correctly guessing my moon and rising signs. You can either choose to guess one OR you can try and guess them all right and get an auto 30, but if you get any one of them wrong -0.3
- Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution +0.3
- I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like +0.3, but if I don't -0.2
- Beat me at Gamepigeon word games or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test +0.2
- W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)
- Sit down early and/or use less prep (let me know)
- Entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
To all competitors
About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals
Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping. I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately. Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate. Most importantly, enjoy the debate
Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.
I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.
1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.
2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).
3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.
4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.
5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.
6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.
7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.
8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.
P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????
-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.
-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.
- My goal when judging is to be tab.
- That being said, I am way better at judging phil debates than policy debates.
- Start your last speech with an overview that tells me as directly as possible why you win. It shouldn't be prewritten. It should go something like: 'I'm winning X argument because Y, and it comes first because Z.'
- Please compare clashing arguments as soon as possible (i.e. in the NC/1AR). Weighing is more important to my ballot than extra cards.
- I like theory but NOT when it's extra ridiculous (i.e. shoe theory).
- Please don't read disclosure theory in front of me. When I competed, disclosure wasn't a thing yet. Nobody knew what the aff was going to be until the timer started. I think this was a way better model for debate because it forced competitors to actually think on their feet. Debate seems very robotic nowadays and I think a large part of that is because of the very uptight disclosure practices.
- The time it takes PF teams to share evidence is a massive problem in this activity. Please, please, please don't take too much time to share evidence -- this drastically increases the length of rounds and delays tournaments.
- I feel like PFers often assume a far greater familiarity with the topic, current events, and economic theory than I actually have. Please over-explain your arguments, and don't instantly assume I understand your responses.
Hi, I am an IT executive in Healthcare company. I am a fairly new parent judge. There are a few key things I prefer to see in a debate round.
- No spreading or talking too fast
- I like clearly weighed and implicated arguments, don't just read evidence out but tell me exactly WHY it matters and how I should prefer it over your opponents
- I will be taking notes but again weighing your arguments and explaining what I should vote on is key as that's how i resolve a debate.
- Judge instruction in your last speech is good.
- No Ks, theory or progressive arguments
- Avoid the use of debate jargon please
I graduated 2022. Debated four years in LD, two in congress, and did speech categories in forensics for all four years. Add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org.
General notes: Run whatever you want as long as it's not offensive. If there is anything that might be considered triggering please give a warning. Be respectful, be passionate, and have fun. If you have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to reach out.
LD (or PF or Policy) : This is by far the category I'm most comfortable with. I've competed in the circuit a bit so I'm good with speed and progressive arguments(NO TRICKS) but that doesn't mean I hate lay debate. Tech over truth. Framework comes first!!! Low key, I think value debates are dumb. I care a lot more about the value criterion. Make a story with clear impacts and voters. Tell me why I'm voting for you. I won't connect your dots. Love me a good power tag but please make sure that your card actually says something kinda relevant to the tag. It's not enough to say "the debater dropped x contention so flow my initial response through." Tell me what that initial response was again. Sign post like your life depends on it. It makes everyone's life easier.
Congress: I've competed in circuit so you can rest assured I'm not another parent judge. This is a DEBATE category. Get aggressive during cx! Please for the love of god interact with other representatives with your speech. Impacting good. Evidence good. If you want more specifics look at my speech paradigm.
Speech categories: Although this might not be interp, feel free to get a little theatrical. I weigh content like 1/2 of what I do your delivery(do what you want with this, obviously it doesn't apply to radio). Creative hooks/analogies will always make me happy but it has to make sense. If you're not super confident with your content, pretend like you are.
Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.
Participated in PF Debate and IX in 2 years at Richardson HS, and 2 years at the Richland College HS program.
Ive graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas in 2021
General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.
Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)
Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.
I may ask for evidence at the end of the round
During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully
Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.
Hi, I am a parent judge, though I have judged various tournaments in the past. I will consider your arguments comprehensively, I just ask that you have clear judge instruction. I will vote objectively based on the debate itself, and not my personal biases.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
1. Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't spread. This will help me a lot when flowing and evaluating the round. I give speaker points based on clarity.
2. I will evaluate the round on who persuades me that their side of the resolution is preferable, so try your best to give strong and compelling arguments. Debate is ultimately a game of persuasion, which will will you my ballot.
3. Debate is for learning and gaining education, so please be respectful to me and each other.
Good luck in the round!!
Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University
judging for over 4 years
IHSA 2022 Update:
Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, resolution, etc.). Offense is good, and I normally vote for the team that has more offense.
UK Digital Speech & Debate #2 Edit:
What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)
What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.
Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, cap, set col, afrofuturism
hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year. i go to stanford now, and i know that it is college apps season, so if you have any questions / do not know where to start / need help (to an extent) feel free to reach out below!
add me on the chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.
k - 1
policy - 1/2
theory - 2/3
tricks - 2/3
normative phil - 4/5
i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.
- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.
- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.
- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.
- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.
- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.
- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)
things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:
- do not commit one of the isms
- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.
- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)
if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25
i'll disclose them if you ask. picture of a cute pet animal (must be yours or a relatives) in first doc will bump your speaks up .2 at max.
Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com
I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I have not judged much during the pandemic so please start a little slower and work up to your top speed and please articulate. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic and I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.
The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.
Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.
Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.
Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.
Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.
The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.
Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.
Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.
Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.
Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.
The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.
Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.
Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.
Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.
Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.
Hi I'm Chandra. I'm a parent judge that's still quite new to judging.
Some important notes:
- I'm not a big fan of spreading since I'm new to judging, but if you do spread, please add me to the email chain and coordinate with you partner beforehand.(email@example.com)
- I don't know too much about theory and tricks debate; I would prefer traditional/lay debate styles that stick to the topic.
- Please provide me with clear voters in the final speech & well-explained warrants/extensions throughout the entire round. Otherwise, you risk confusing me.
Besides that, feel free to debate in the way you prefer. If you have any questions, you're welcome to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or ask me at the beginning of the round.
(I go by Sai + they/them)
Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22
(email@example.com) -- Pls use fileshare or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but have some key random notes at the bottom and specific sections below!
I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, championed a college policy tournament, reached late elims of college tourneys, and I've coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds in both. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning nothing will affect my decision that is not on here. :))
My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I am more than willing to vote on impact turns, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I default comparative worlds, but tech > truth. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity. I don’t see myself really reading through evidence or revisiting your docs to find args — it’s your job to do that work for me.
I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.
If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more speaks incentives and qualms of mine!
I don't care if you read K's, phil, policy, theory, etc. -- but I do care for warrants, weighing, and interesting args so have fun and do you -- I have a pretty good amount of experience with every style and form of debate in LD and policy, so feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with. My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.
You do you and I'll do my best — I aim to be as tab as I can -- I appreciate judge instruction, clarity > speed, and clear framing -- but regardless, tech > truth and I will vote for whoever has the cleanest route to the ballot/whoever I have to do less work for.
You do NOT have to accommodate lay debaters -- if you want to spread, that's fine -- don't be mean though and don't be too evasive, but I don't think you have to stop reading your K or NC. And I am NOT afraid to drop you -- I have heard a lay debater win impact turns to a Baudrillard alt, so I will happily vote either way.
Please give me trigger/content warnings
Go to the bottom for stuff about speaks and some random shtuff I care about (also influences speaks tho)
For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read, as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read them) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your paradoxes and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story -- read what you want, just don't bore me.
I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me. I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison.
However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.
Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.
DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations (I love IR). I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.
I’m mostly familiar with Kantian ethics, and have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, and other social contract theories. I've read and/or defended all of these, but never studied them in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.
I actually grant a lot more credence to these arguments that I believe other judges do -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore spikes or shy away from answering bindingness -- but I would need you to slow down and collapse a bit in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love K's as much as I love Kant or paradoxes.
I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.
I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't vote on Kant is racist, unless someone proves that his theory is and does the work of proving the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it.
You can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.
HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a way for the affirmative to win a no link argument or prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2023, so update your authors.
I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.
I don't mind if you read these -- read a fair share of them myself (good samaritan paradox, a priori's, k tricks, etc.) and went for them too, coached debaters who read them, and have judged many rounds that came down to tricks. Substantively justified ones are the best and I'll vote for you if you win it because I'm tab and will vote on tech, but you need to impact them out.
However, I'm also happy to vote on tricks are racist or that they reproduce some type of violence -- people reading tricks should be prepared for this though and I still need debaters reading args that tricks are violent to win them on a technical level.
I think that topic-based presumption triggers/case turns, framework centered tricks, burden structures, K-based framing tricks, permissibility, etc. -- are some of what I'm hip with and a good judge for.
I sometimes like them, sometimes hate them, and also think they're fun depending on how you go for them. Nonetheless, I am committed to being a tab judge and I will comfortably vote on tricks when they're impacted out and you explain the ballot story to me.
Outlining the ballot story by impacting out the trick + framing it well (doesn't mean truth testing, just how I should evaluate the round), closing all doors for the other side, and collapsing down to one/a few tricks is how you'll get high speaks from me!
Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to disclosure to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me -- the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.
Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not apply to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).
Impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too (i.e., when they rely on warrants in the aff and you're reading arguments on T/theory for why you couldn't engage those warrants, granting the impact turn doesn't make sense in this case and seems to supercharge the abuse story) -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters.
Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing or not sending you docs, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read
I read topicality against most k aff’s that I hit my senior year, both just defend the topic and framework itself, and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my last topic too. However, I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.
I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.
I think having either offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive and useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people.
When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on both sides of this issue and I love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best and worst rounds. However, I am here for it.
Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, but I still need aff's to answer them. Low threshold for answers, but collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past. That being said, I've also been on the other side of the issue and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).
Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me that I should determine the topic by conventional grammar rules in English, which sounds like a very colonial norm to set -- I don't think this means I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on grammar is racist.
That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.
Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense.
I’m most comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, queer theory, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, José Esteban Muñoz, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))
Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position.
Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is fine BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also chill voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, but be prepared in case the argument is made.
Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.
Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.
Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.
Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.
Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.
From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.
Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.
Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.
Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.
Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.
I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.
Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))
For Policy/CX Debate:
There's not a lot I think I really need to say -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I judged a bid round/up to early elims at tourneys, coached some policy debaters in the past, and I'm pretty familiar with both policy and K lit -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you.
Most of the LD stuff should also be relevant if you want specifics (minus the phil and tricks stuff prolly).
My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in CX, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning, you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts.
I think framing is important -- doesn't mean you have to win util or a ROTB, but just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round.
Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you.
Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.
Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.
ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.
I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL
- + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
- Clarity and enunciation > speed please
- --- if you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
- Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
- I average a 29+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):
- Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
- Please please please slow down on tags and give me something to differentiate between args (i.e., “and”)
- I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
- If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
- Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- that means I have very low tolerance for lack of citations (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when), clipping, and more
- Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways
- Trigger and content warnings are important to me as an educator in the activity, but also as a participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- (this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally)
- Feel free to ask where someone stops or if they didn't read a certain arg in the doc, but I think y'all be losing a ton of ethos in front of me when I realize that you're not listening to each other's speeches and instead flowing robotically along with the doc because you ask if they didn't read arguments they DEFINITELY did. Although this is actually usually what the other debater is reading, I'd rather hear you ask tough questions while they fumble to send you the doc than sit here in silence watching. I also just think y'all can flow and catch where they skip things or that I should encourage you as an educator to learn to. Regardless, now that it's on my paradigm, I feel comfy dropping your speaks for unprepared CX's -- not that I'm tanking them, but please pay attention.
- Hmm, I'm starting to get skeptical of how y'all be using prep and time to send docs -- if I can tell that you're editing a doc after saying ur sending it and you stopped prep time, I am gonna start docking speaks, BUT also you should be sending the doc RIGHT after prep is over
Please do not spread. Refer to link for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0
For Brown Invitational: Give me judge instructions and weigh in your final speeches.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (include on all chains)
I did LD in high school but I know how the rest of the formats work. If it helps I was a K/F AFF debater and got a bid senior year
Currently attending Brown University and debating APDA.
Please read what you are most comfortable reading. I will most likely vote for the debater that is able to give me a straight path to the ballot. This means that a. give me the role of the ballot and b. tell me directly what matters in round.
K/K Affs ---- 1
Larp/T --- 2
Theory --- 3
Phil --- 3
Tricks --- strike
I obviously loved the K debate when I was in high school. It definitely gave me the chance to explore literature base that is often times overlooked by many people in the community. I have come to find out K v K debates are the most interesting to me but I will obviously evaluate any arguments against the K. I think there are a lot of creative arguments that can be made against Ks but teams tend to rely on generic arguments. But regardless of how important I think K debate is I will not be your “K hack”. I will not fill in the blanks for you. This means you have to give a solid overview on top, link chain, and explain why your alt/fw works. I prefer if you relate it back to the topic but if not I will listen to you but at a far higher standard.
When doing the K debate, please either choose to go for either framing or the alt. I have found that debaters trying to do both will end up under covering both of them. For framework in particular, give me a reason why education outweighs fairness and you will find yourself in a far better position to win the round.
Try to be creative in your answers and standards. I am kind of tired of hearing the same generic fairness and education arguments. Explain to me why your specific case matters and what my role is to further either fairness and education. I think deliberation and spill over are underutilized as impacts on the T/FW page.
This section accounts for any type of DAs/CPs. If none of the sides give me a way to weigh your impacts I will default to util. Please weigh your impacts at the end or give me a clear link chain. If I don’t understand how x country doing y policy will lead to extinction you will not get my ballot. This means I will default neg on presumption. The AFF needs to present me with a reason why 1% risk outweighs everything else in this round.
I honestly don’t have anything else to say about this type of debate other than if you are planning to run PICs be warned that I lean more in favor of PIC bad theory.
The only “controversial take” I can think of is that if it is obvious your opponent does not know what the wiki is and you run disclosure on them your speaks will be 27 even if you win. In short don’t be mean to novices and don’t run frivolous things. I will unfortunately evaluate them but your speaks are going to reflect my unhappy state.
Didn’t see it a lot at tournaments and will appreciate you for running things. I would just be careful in running niched or jargony things because you will lose me. Otherwise have fun - a lot of the takes on the K section will apply here as well.
No. Just no. Please don’t.
Be nice to your opponents (especially if they are a novice).
Tech > Truth
Competing interps > Reasonability
Fairness vs Education who really knows what’s better depends on the round
Will stake the round on ev ethics (Also if I or the opponent notices you contacting coaches and teammates during round your speaks will be severely impacted)
Know your case. Prove to me you know it in CX and I’ll boost your speaks.
Try not to read the same generic stuff that your coaches wrote for you and embrace just going for what you know.
Will stop the round if anyone is being raciest/homophobic/sexist etc. and you will receive a L15 and you will be reported to the tournament director
I am a traditional parent judge. I appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.
Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.
Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.
My expertise is in Public Forum debate since it was my main event for all 4 years of high school, competing on the local and national level. That being said, I'm not super well versed in progressive LD with the theories and K's and whatnot but if you think that the logic is digestible enough, then it probably won't break the round for you to run it.
I'm fine with spreading but obviously not to the point of incomprehension on either my part or your opponent(s)'. If you want specific cards/warrants to be heavily evaluated then don't speed through it in speech.
Analysis is always preferred over just card stacking.
Clear weighing should be present in each speech after case read.
Winston Churchill ‘23
Email chain: email@example.com
Trinity debate has plenty of scholarships! please don't hesitate to ask me about college debate!
- do what you do best, I have ideological biases but nothing good debate can't overcome
- please please please don't try to over adapt! I am perfectly capable and willing to listen to your best arguments
– Tech > truth
- I am quite expressive, you will probably know how I feel about your argument
- I am flowing cx, why you would use this as prep is beyond me.
- Evidence quality is very important to me: peer-reviewed, written by people with relevant quals, from reputable sites, etc. Well-done evidence comparison will be advantageous to you.
- Insertions = thumbs down. If you didn't say it, I didn't flow it. Inserting egregious rehighlighting may be my only exception.
- I prefer to listen to complete arguments. I will not decide a debate based on a six word perm answer
i am not a fan of tricks or phil debate. that being said I still know how to evaluate these debates, I will just be very sad about it.
it would behoove you to do evidence comparison and impact calculus
the closer you get to a policy debate, the happier i will be and the more likely you are to win.
Kritikal Affs/ Framework:
my thoughts here are probably best summed up by natalie stone, "I’ll probably like your k aff if it has a reason why people should negate it."
-- yes go for a planless aff, just like... try... to gesture in the direction of the topic
-- yes I've read kritikal affs but do NOT assume I know your lit base
-- always down for a non fwk strat but specificity is always key
-- Im self aware that I tend to lean neg in fwk debates but I find that topic-specific aff offense is pretty compelling. I am terminally unpersuaded by debate bad args.
-- the team with the most contextual offense and thorough comparisons of a model of debate is more likely to get my ballot.
K V Policy Affs:
-- potentially my favorite debates
-- im well versed in cap, set col, anti-blackness, security, realism but don't act like I am. Anything more niche than this is cool but make sure to explain.
-- read an alt or don't, but I tend to auto-filter the link debate through the scope of alt solvency. More than happy to hear why I shouldn't though.
-- link specificity goes crazy but I will also listen to your shady pik
-- don't let the school fool you, I tend to dislike extinction good/death good args
side note for policy affs:
yes read your questionably topical aff, yes go for T. I default to competing interps
I adore case debates and would love to listen to 13 minutes of author indicts + case turn
-- I default to competing interps
-- evidence > community consensus
-- im totally open to whatever impact you can give the best 2nr on
-- the team with the best articulation of a season of debates under their interpretation and why its uniquely good is probably going to win my ballot. TVAs/Caselists can be helpful here.
-- please please please
-- CPs should be functionally and textually competitive but I have certainly been on the most abusive side of this and I've also given the 1ar on theory. I don't lean a particular way here but impact calc and comparison goes a very long way.
-- solvency advocates are a must
-- I have no problem judge kicking the cp but i shouldn't be hearing this for the first time in the 2nr
-- we let affs get away with permutation murder and it is my moral belief that written perm texts are best policy. i would probably find myself nodding along with the 2nr telling why the 1ars bizzare extrapolation of “perm do both” is illegitimate.
-- yeah of course
-- not much to say here but link uniqueness and uq controls the link args are quite persuasive to me
-- a dramatic reading of the link wall and a substantial amount of time spent on impact calculus will make me oh so very happy. otherwise, I will be sad sifting through this "goes nuclear" mess
SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN
- condo is good but i will vote on it
- i will be so mad if this becomes two ships passing in the night, be specific, do the comparison, AND ANSWER THE LINE BY LINE
Mark Kivimaki (he/him) – yes, I want to be on the chain, ask for my email before the round.
Affiliations: Edina HS, Seven Lakes HS, University of Minnesota
Background: I debated 4 years in HSLD, mostly on a traditional circuit. I then did for parliamentary debate for a year in college before switching to policy. I debated at the NDT and CEDA, going exclusively for K arguments. I have coached HSLD for 4 years, and I also have dabbled in speech, PF, and policy. This year, I am working primarily with high school LDers and a college policy team, so I will have the most topic knowledge in those places.
My debate opinions are an amalgamation from Spencer Anderson-McElligott, Rose Larson, Liz Elliott, Lily Guizatoullina and Kacee Wells.
Policy/National Circuit LD
This is the policy/national circuit LD paradigm. If I am judging you in traditional LD or public forum, scroll down.
Flow... the lack of flowing in high school debates particularly is making them noticeably worse. If you ask for a marked doc where cards that aren't read are removed, your speaks are capped at a 28.5. If you ask more than 1 or 2 clarifying questions about what evidence is read, your speaks are capped at a 28.5. You cannot ask clarifying questions outside of CX or prep time. I will start your prep time for you if you start asking questions without starting the CX / prep timer.
Number your arguments and answer arguments in the order they were presented. This will probably be the #1 most important factor in your speaker points.
Clarity is paramount. If you're not clear, I cannot flow or understand the arguments you're making, and I won't look at the doc to compensate for clarity issues. If you are unclear, I will call "clear" twice before I stop flowing.
I have experience competing in and coaching in all styles and almost every format. I don't hold many substantive beliefs at this point about style or content of arguments. The most important factors for debaters in front of me are demonstrating deep understanding of the arguments presented, nuanced impact calculus and judge instruction, and bold strategic decision making.
I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.
Evidence ethics and clipping violations stop the round, and you don’t get to debate them out. I will follow tournament rules to adjudicate. If you’re making a clipping accusation you need recorded proof. Skipping one or two words on accident is not clipping.
If you’re a high schooler I really do not want to hear you swearing. It’s not persuasive, it’s just cringy. I especially do not want to hear anything sexually suggestive. If you wouldn’t do it in front of a teacher don’t do it in a debate.
Teams have been exceptionally bad at updating their wikis this year. Tell me after the round if you think your wiki exemplifies good disclosure practices (round reports and cites/open source posted for each round) and I will boost your speaks by +0.3 if I agree.
Most of my knowledge and research is in K stuff, but I’m totally comfortable evaluating policy v policy.
Counterplan theory is bad and better resolved as a question of competition. I am confident in my understanding of more esoteric concepts in counterplan competition, but I just haven’t been in that many debates about it (either judging or debating), so I may not share the same intuitions you think are common sense and you may want to invest extra time in judge instruction.
Arbitrariness is the most important consideration in theory debates.
Topicality is good. Compare the actual interpretations and counter-interpretations. T is an evidentiary argument, so you should do evidence comparison. I don’t judge a ton of policy debates so I won’t have well-developed intuitions about what is “core of the topic”.
Extinction does not intuitively outweigh. Prioritizing tiny probabilities of extinction is a deranged way to think about risk calculus, and debaters reading "soft left" affirmatives should make these arguments and read well-warranted cards about risk calculus. This also requires answering the substance of the disad. But many teams do neither, so more power to the extinction first team.
Ks on the NEG – framework is paramount. Do judge instruction about your interpretation and explain what it gets you. Most of these debates come down to underdeveloped issues about the scope of legitimate alternative fiat, whether the AFF gets to weigh case, or the scope of links to the AFF, so you should probably be explicit.
K AFFs – Debate about interps/models rather than just impacts. Presumption is underrated. Don’t be generic. “No perms” is a non-starter if the AFF is competent.
Nat-circuit LD specific things:
The closer to policy the better. The one exception is phil.
Barely anyone in this activity knows how to spread. If you really think you're clear, feel free to spread. Otherwise, debate at a conversational pace or you won't be happy with your speaks. I'm so serious about this, I think that I have maybe seen 3 or 4 LD debaters this year that I would consider to be acceptably flowable. I'll happily give a "I didn't catch that" RFD. Skill issue.
Down to vote for phil, but I don’t coach or think about it much, so you’ll need to hold my hand a bit more through these debates. Arguments like "epistemic modesty" or "extinction outweighs" don't make much sense to me against deontological frameworks, but I will vote on them if won.
The other thing I have noticed lately about phil debates is that debaters are neglecting the contention level of the debate. Most of the contention-level offense I see is really bad. Util debaters should be turning the contention in every single debate, and for that matter, phil debaters should be turning all the util offense as well.
Tricks usually don’t pass the “why test”, but if you read warrants for your arguments and explain why they matter, I’ll vote for them. If your strategy consists of just reading lists of paradoxes that can be cross-applied from topic to topic, my threshold will be so low for responses.
If you say the word "IVI" in front of me it's -1 speaker point. "Independent voters" do not exist -- it's either a theory argument or an independent/performative link to a K.
Frivolous theory is unpersuasive, but LDers are terrible about justifying “drop the argument” and “reasonability”.
Lincoln-Douglas -- Minnesota Circuit
Line by line matters. Signpost, answer arguments, do evidence comparison, do impact calculus.
Framework debates are important, but you still need to win contention-level offense under the winning framework.
Bring back non-utilitarian frameworks. I think I can count the number of framework debates I have seen this year on one hand.
Don't read things like Ks or theory unless your opponent indicates they would like to have a national circuit style debate round. I love unconventional approaches to traditional LD debate, but your arguments must prove the resolution true if you are AFF and the resolution false if you are NEG. The only circumstance where I abandon this paradigm is where both debaters actively indicate they would prefer a national circuit round.
Evidence exchanges in this format are mindboggling to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.
Hello, I am a parent judge with prior experience. I mainly specialize and like hearing lay arguments and thus will often not understand the link or meaning behind progressive-type arguments, ex. Kritiks, Theory. I want debaters to prioritize weighing and voters while at the same time looking at impact and link turns. Most of all, HAVE FUN! This is a fun learning experience; treat it that way.
Send Speech Docs!!
Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Sophomore at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool
General Things --
1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.
2) tech > truth
3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.
4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.
5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this
6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest
7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.
8) Don't spread if you're going against a traditional debater -- you will get low speaks
9) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8
Quick Pref Sheet --
Theory/T - 1
K (Identity) - 2
Phil - 2/3
Tricks - 3
K (High Theory) - 4/5
Policy - 5
Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)
Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds
Competing Interps > Reasonability
Drop the debater > Drop the argument
No RVIs > RVIs
Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates
Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms
Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk
Novice LD --
I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.
DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.
COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.
How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.
Varsity LD --
Tricks -- Sure but here are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page.
-- If you have analytics pre-written in a constructive speech send it
T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.
-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.
K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.
-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.
K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, an explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.
Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope, I just don't have the most experience with this style of debate
-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.
Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.
-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.
I am a parent judge. Please don’t spread. I’ll say “clear” for you to slow down if I don’t understand. I will score you based on sound reasonable arguments connected with good evidence and the flow of thought. All things remaining equal, I prefer to judge a round on evidence based structured arguments and responses to your opponents contention, than frameworks and technical procedures.
TLDR: Do whatever u want I'll try my best not to intervene.
Add me to the chain and send docs: firstname.lastname@example.org
UPDATE YALE: Set up email chain before round and you should be ready to start immediately at the posted round time. I will deduct speaks by .3 for every minute you are late.
I debated 4 years at Flower Mound
qualled for toc x2
I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast
LARP: Weigh and meta weigh
Phil/ Framing: I default util but feel free to run something else if u want. I'm familiar with kant, struc vio, and sentimentalism. If ur reading something else thats not intuitive slow down a bit and overexplain.
T/Theory: Went for this a lot, its pretty fun to judge. I default competing interps, yes rvis, drop the debater, normsetting > In round abuse. Chill with friv theory. I generally think disclosure/round reports is true and paraphrasing bad but I def wont hack for them.
Ks: I never rlly ran these args but I've hit them—T framework is a godsend. If u run them i'm almost assuredly not familiar with your lit. Err on the side of overexplaining it to me like I'm a 5 year old. Not a fan of alts that do essentially nothing. Complex K debates are where I trust myself the least in making the right decision.
Tricks: Feel free to run. Idk why this needs to be said but if ur just gonna dump a bunch a paradoxes u need to read truth testing. I rlly like eval after, indexicals, and theory tricks.
Presumption: If there's no offense at end of round, I default presumption goes to the team that lost the flip.
Feel free to post round me.
If you have any questions ask me before the round.
Speaker Points: I give some pretty mid speaks based on strategic decisions you make so don't go for everything.
I'll usually start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.
i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc
I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats
- Affiliations: Hawken, VBI
Email: email@example.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters
Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds
TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously
i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at
i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy
- round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.
pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments
- DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)
I am a lay judge - don't pref unless you're ok reading trad
My decision will consider holistically how well you back specific arguments with specific evidence and data.
Please don't spread, unless you send me your case & cards before the AC. Also, even if only one side spreads, I'd prefer that both sides send cases & cards before the AC, for the purpose of consistency and equity.
Repetition ≠ extension. Use time effectively and efficiently. Arguments made past time will likely be struck. Please monitor your own time (prep as well). I will do so as well and signal when I believe time is up.
During prelims, I will not reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise. For rounds after prelims, I will reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise.
RFDs will always be written.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I come from a Policy Debate background. You can spread...or not, but if I can't flow it, I can't know it.
I probably won't be impressed with arguments that attempt to circumvent discussion on the actual resolution, so you may be better served scrapping your K affs (or negs) or topicality negs (unless, of course, you are responding to a K aff with a topicality neg). If you choose to run one or more highly philosophical and/or theoretical argument(s) and proceed to read cards that say things like: "Having one’s experiences obscured and rendered unintelligible due to herme-neutical injustice is an infringement upon the epistemic agency...," or "Particularly the Cartesian dualism between the extended physical world and the nonphysical world of thought was seen as the definitive completion of the pre-Socratic turn from mythos to logos, when myth finally became synonymous with the subjective and the irrational. From this point onward, myths could neither serve as cosmological narratives of the universe, nor as valid allegories of nature, for they were now fully associated with the inner realm of subjective experience and not with the outer realm of the objective physical world," you should know that I will NOT understand them. I am a highly educated former debater, but I cannot possibly digest any of this in the few minutes of time I get to do so. I, unlike you, do not have the benefit of being able to think through these types of arguments in advance of the round. Frankly, even if I did, I am quite certain I still would not understand them standing alone let alone in the context of the debate. In fairness to you, you should know that.
I think that debate on matters unrelated to the resolution fundamentally stifle fairness for several reasons. In the first instance, they impede a competitor's ability to adequately prepare by creating a universe where one side dictates the narrative of the debate, or, alternatively, the debate consists of two people talking past each other. This strategy creates a world where there is absolutely no point in even having a resolution. The rules tell me that the competitors are to debate a particular resolution, and the debater tells me I can't until we first talk about ageism or ableism or the relative value of dogs over cats or whether french fries are proof of a higher being (they are). Secondly, they heavily favor schools and students with copious economic resources who have the privilege and luxury of being able to expand their preparation into this infinite universe of argument. Let's level the playing field a bit better (maybe we should debate that instead?).
On that note, I value responsiveness to your opponent's arguments, and I love a good common-sense position. However, if you are going to rely on factual/empirical arguments, please make sure they are supported by evidence. Most importantly, I do not tolerate unsportsmanlike conduct. I was a litigator for many years and stared down many an adversary, but I was always respectful, polite, and kind. Since I am judge and jury in this debate, I will not be impressed by the debater that yells louder or whose tone is more indignant. Rather, the debater that makes the more compelling arguments will win the round.
Other things: I don't love pics or piks. If you run one anyway (which is completely fine) do not extend disads that your pic/k would equally trigger AND the pic/k into your rebuttal. If you give me contradictory arguments, I won't know which to vote on, and they will likely cancel each other out in my decision calculus.
If I cannot hear or understand what you are reading during the allotted time you are given, I will not consider it in my analysis of the round. Sharing your constructive should not be an end-run around time limits by emboldening you to speak so incoherently that the content is indiscernible based on your belief that I can simply read the case on my own.
Also, a note about tech troubles. I think the best debater should win and not the one who had a better WiFi connection (unless, of course, they are one and the same). I understand that technology is not infallible, and I will NOT punish you if your connection is lost or you cut out. I believe that an important tenet of fairness and sportsmanship is the right to be heard. That means that I will show you grace and patience if you have tech troubles. I will ask you to repeat things and add time as necessary.
Good luck everyone!
Currently a junior at Yale. I debated PF and traditional LD in high school. If you bring in a prog arg, you need to explain to me very clearly what it means and what the implication is.
I do not enjoy spreading. I also do not view LD as a technical game where I tally off points in a running scorecard for every dropped or turned argument. You may disagree. I will not give lower speaks if you do, but I will have a more difficult time evaluating the round.
I am not a robot. Debate is not a purely rational exercise. Persuasion is important. Your job is to convince me that the ballot is yours. This does not mean blitzing through dozens of points in your 2NR or 2AR. Believe me, I understand the temptation. Instead, I am looking for clear and concise weighing. Tell me what’s important and why. Make it easy for me to vote. Speed and volume do not trump clarity and precision.
Background: Debated in Texas. Judge for Texas/Connecticut/NY.
LD and CX, some Congress.
China Spring High School '22, Yale University '26
I prefer evidence and contention level debate over framework and value debate, but that doesn't mean to not have any clash on the framework. Speed is fine, but be clear. Policy arguments are fine except for K's. If policy, specify type of argument during roadmap (CP, DA, T, etc.) Need clear sign posting and roadmaps. I REALLY like line by line. LOVE organization. I like clear indications of where contentions and subpoints start.
I don't buy dumb arguments like "you dropped my quote" or "you didn't acknowledge my definitions" when you clearly have the same definitions. Time yourself please. Rudeness and aggression will not be tolerated and will result in low speaks. No cases with racist undertones, will automatically vote other side. I like voters a lot, tell me what to vote for! If you give me good voters, I'll vote on it. The more organization, the more speaks.
Also email me your case please.
WashU 2025. Never did debate before. I am a lay judge. Please explain your arguments clearly and concisely. No spreading and if you run a K, I probably won't understand it.
I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.
- Have depth in understanding of the topic.
- Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
- Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
- Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
- Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.
- Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
- Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
- Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.
- Truth > Tech
- Argument Quality > Quantity
- Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.
My wife is currently coaching for Neenah High school in Wisconsin.
I have judged sparingly in the past several years for her. I don't consider myself a strong debate judge. I would say I am a "lay" judge, but I did study philosophy and ethics in college.
I listen for the most well supported framework, then who makes the biggest/most likely impacts under that.
I usually am judging from a public space, so for privacy concerns I do not keep my camera on.
Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!
My expectations for debaters:
--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.
--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.
--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.
--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.
--- Signpost in your speeches.
--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.
--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!
**NSD: Don't bully novices - I will severely tank speaks and err against your arguments. If you can't win those debates without tricks and spikes then you don't deserve the ballot.
I did LD debate at LHS for four years. I qualified for the TOC twice and currently coach the Lexington Debate Team.
Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics, so send them.
If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.
1) If you are unclear and as a result, I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear when needed - if an argument was half a sentence and unclear in the 1AR/1NC assume it doesn't meet the litmus test for having a warrant... meaning I won't vote for a collapse on it.
2) I am not debating, so I don't have a right to tell you what you read. Please do and read what you like.
3) Truth over tech is wack - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true.
4) I have a low threshold for 1AR and 2AR extensions for dropped arguments - just mention the tag or interp - but I need explanations for its implications and applications on the flow.
5) Debates a game
6) I do not vote on ad hominems
7) I will boost speaks if you sit down early or/and take no prep only if you can still win.
Theory - 1
Kritiks - 1
Phil - 2
Tricks - 3
Policy/LARP - 4
For specifics -
Tricks: I'm well versed - people give this style of debate a bad name by extending every dropped sentence and throwing crap at the wall with no weighing or implication - impact out a few well and explain why they justify a ballot.
Theory: No such thing as frivolous theory, reasonability is strategic if well justified, do standard weighing between multiple shells or I'll default substance. I'm not very well versed in grammar rules so err on the side of over-explanation. 1AR theory makes being aff so easy so read it lol. Yes, RVIs is a good argument.
Stock K's/Topical K's: Please err on the side of heavy LBL rather than reading a 5-minute overview with loads of embedded clash. I view the K as a philosophical argument so framing is important. Have a counter-interpretation to weigh the case and read case defense (extinction inevitable is smart) or else you'll lose. I'm open to VTL arguments, debate bad, ID pol tricks, K tricks (e.g. floating PIKs), and death good. K v K debates are fun as long as there is good impact calc, link analysis and examples.
Non T: I read a lot of these. I enjoy the "debate good-bad" debate. T Framework makes the game work though so have well developed impact turns.
Policy/LARP: Getting better at evaluating it.
Philosophy: I'm confident in evaluating this correctly. Please make framework interactions (hijacks are good). Don't shoehorn terrible offense just so you can read the Phil you want, you will probably lose. if you justify epistemic modesty, explain how I resolve the round correctly under it. I have a high threshold for winning extinction o/w against deontic theories - you probably won't win this if you lose util under epistemic confidence.
I am a completely Lay judge with no circuit judging experience. If you want to debate circuit, please add me to the email chain so I can read your case and try to follow along (email@example.com)
For both Lay and Circuit, please make your impacts clear and exactly why I should be voting for the affirmative /negation. I am not great with speed so I prefer if you talk slower.
For an equitable spirit of the sport I believe no debate is fairer than one where you don't discriminate or use derogatory words to describe your opponent or their arguments. Every argument is reasonable enough to be respected and duly considered.
Couple of things that I look out for in your cases: The extent at which you're able to defend your stand on the resolution (sufficient analysis).
Secondly, how well you follow through your idea, showing it's relevance and comparing appropriately against your opponents cases.
Knowing when to concede but at the same time prove your burden.
Last but not least, I prefer that you gently engage the debate. Rushing your speech might result to a situation where either I or your opponent does not fully understand your cases, that'll only make the debate a bit messy.
Overall, I enjoy a good debate and I trust you do too.
tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!
You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.
I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.
On to the good stuff:
1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.
2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!
3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.
4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.
5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.
6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.
I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.
I coach students on both the local and national circuits.
I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.
You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.
I prefer that you not swear in round.
Deena R. McNamara, Esq.
UPDATED SPRING 2023
Please include me on the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate. We were the pioneers who established what LD has evolved into over the last couple of decades… You're welcome?!
I have been a litigation attorney over 25 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 18 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I am currently coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. Although I am not an educator in the traditional sense, I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.
I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. You will never see me on FB or playing computer games in round. It makes me very angry to see that is common practice amongst the judges on the panels that I sit on. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible. (By the way, please don't text in a round that I am judging until you are waiting on the RFD- thanks.)
I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.
If you are going to engage in a FW debate then I expect you to present a value/value criterion framework with philosophical support for the position. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.
I like Ks when they are well-written and have an alt. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed and some other random authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.
I am fine with Plans and Counterplans. Please make sure that they are sufficiently developed. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent.
T, theory and misc.:
I am amenable to topicality arguments as they will probably be necessary to attack cases that fail to argue the resolution as stated. (I am not a huge fan of non-T affs unless they are predictable for the topic…or you can just be topical in some way. I think you can link to the resolution somehow!)
Don't just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect the Aff to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to flash cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.
LD as a sport:
LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.
However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.
Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.
Voters and what I like to vote on:
Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me in the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.
Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your cx as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate!
Speaker points at circuit tournaments:
When I award speaker points, I judge you based on quality of arguments you made in the round, your analysis and weighing as well as CX. CX is extremely important if you want to get top speaks. (At locals, I might inflate these a bit based on the competition.)
30- you are a top seed and have not dropped a round- you were perfect!
29.5- you are a top seed, have not dropped a round- you were almost perfect!
29- you are a top seed, maybe dropped a round- did an excellent job!
28.5- you are expected to break, dropped a round- did an excellent job!
28- you are expected to break, dropped a round or two- still did an excellent job!
27.5- you are probably 4-2 and did a good job.
27- you are probably 4-2 or 3-3 and just need to work on analysis, cx or other in round skills.
26- I am glad that you are at the tournament- keep working, go to camp and stay in this event because it is the best!
I'm generally adaptable to the different methods of presentation I judge, though I skew more traditional when it comes to speed (full-tilt spreading is not my native style). For LD, I tend to look favorably on arguments that are clearly linked back to the value/criterion structure--cleanly articulating why the argument matters is going to be as important as proving you have won the point in question. Clear organization of your speeches is also going to be rewarded--thinking through the order of your points and signposting help strengthen your argument and are valuable skills rhetorical skills to develop. I'm more than happy to clarify my paradigm pre-round, so don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions or concerns.
Background: Mechanical Engineering; Marketing Management; Data Architecture in Business/Data Analytics
I Look for these qualities among Debaters:
- Factual Evidence in Speech, well-supported arguments
- Mutual Respect for one another;
- respectful interruption on cross-examination is a skill every debater must have
- Staying in the context of the resolution
- if argument seems far-fetched, there must be a clear and defined link between the argument and your side of the resolution.
- Proper time management
- line-by-line analysis and extending arguments
- bring closure for arguments/summarize
I'm a lecturer at Princeton University, where I teach Environmental Sciences. I'm also the mother of a high school Junior who debates in LD and PF
I'm a parent judge.
I don't have a great deal of experience in debate, as I started this activity only last year.
I prefer debaters to speak at a slow or moderate rate to give me time to process and take notes on the information that is being offered.
I prefer fewer arguments that are developed more substantially over a long list of reasons that remain superficial.
I usually decide the winner of the round based on who has provided the best key arguments in the round.
I find that the use of evidence is almost always necessary to convince me of an argument.
When I take notes, I keep a rigorous flow.
Please remember to be civil and respectful to each other.
Hello! I am an experienced former debater, coach, and now volunteer judge while I complete my undergraduate studies. I did four years of LD Debate at Phillipsburg High School and was team captain. During this time I competed in both state and national circuit as well as in the NCFL. In 2018 I was New Jersey's state champion for Novice LD Debate. I learned LD as a traditional debater and still call traditional LD home but I am comfortable with most progressive arguments, except spreading. I cannot stand spreading. I believe it takes away from the debate. It ought not be my job as the judge to try to follow along while reading your case and not understand what you are saying. It is all very inequitable for your opponent if they are not comfortable with spreading or has never seen it. Please please please do not spread. You are there to debate, not send me competing high school argumentative essays for me to read during the round. Please be respectful of your opponent. I will not discount you for having an extinction impact but REALIZE IT CARRIES A MASSIVE BURDEN OF PROOF. Do not make your entire case's weight centered around the impact of extinction. They say "life finds a way" and that is true. It'll take a lot of things going exactly as you lay them for extinction to be viable and the longer the link chain, the less probable it is.
Background: Did LD debate for 4 years
LD: I prefer trad debate.
Use email@example.com for email chains.
Anything else: don't go crazy? Clarity is important.
Ask me if you have questions.
This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.
I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.
If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.
Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.
Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.
Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.
I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.
The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.
Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.
Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.
The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.
I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.
You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.
Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.
LD paradigm ends here.
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.
My email is email@example.com
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.
Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.
I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.
Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.
Case debate is underrated.
Straight turns are great turns.
Topics DAs >> Politics.
I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.
While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.
9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):
While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.
I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.
Hi! I'm Shruti and I debated for Ridge for 4 years. In LD, I debated on both the nat circuit and the NCFL NSDA circuit, so feel free to debate however you want in front of me. I semid at NCFLS my junior year, qualled to LD toc my senior year, and placed top 14 at NSDA my junior year. In Parli, I did both West and East Coast style debate and semid at the TOC my junior year. I was also a lab leader @ NSD summer of 23, and now am an assistant coach for Harrison High School.
TLDR; I will evaluate any argument you run as long as it’s not an "ism" and is properly warranted but here's a list of what I'm most comfortable judging. Don't feel like you need to adapt your strat for me, I'd much rather you do you.
K/ performance Aff- 1
Trix- 3/4 for substantive tricks (probably a 5 if its tricks v tricks)
I'll flow at whatever speed you read and will yell clear if I can't understand you. Blitz through constructive speeches but I definitely appreciate some pen time for back half speeches, so slow down on things like 1AR/2NR analytics.
DAs- I love a good Disad. Specific DAs>Generic ones. Also, your uniqueness for things like tix and econ should be recent.
CPs- Cps are great, read whatever you want and however many you want. CPs should probably have a net benefit. If you are kicking planks, tell me, I won't judge kick for you.
K affs- I LOVE well-written, topic-specific, and innovative K affs. PLEASE clearly delineate the impacts of voting aff and have a clear narrative. If you cant answer the question "what does voting aff do", I almost certainly won't be voting aff. With that being said, I’m also open to voting on T FW.
Ks- I'm familiar with the most common LD Ks- Cap, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Fem, Puar, Set col, security and most POMO/high theory(D&G, Berardi, Baudy, Lacan, and Derrida). Ks NEED an overview in the 2NR to crystalize the round and to tell me where to vote. Overviews are NOT a substitute for real LBL- I will not do the work of crossiplying implicit clash from the 4 min 2NR overview onto the K page!! Specific links>Generic ones. K tricks are cool just flag them.
Theory: I’m super down to judge a good theory debate. Read whatever you want, I’ll vote on friv theory if you properly extend it. I default to no RVI and competing interps, but if you don't tell me whether the theory is DTD or DTA, I'm not voting on it. Please weigh between standards, it makes the debate much easier to resolve. Slow down on theory analytics.
T: Have case lists and definitions. If you read grammar-based arguments, please understand them(ie you should be able to explain what the upward entailment test is if you are running it)
Phil: I'm honestly not the best judge for dense Phil debates, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability if you tell me where to vote and signpost. I'm familiar with Kant, libertarianism, and virtue ethics but definitely errr on the side of over-explanation.
Tricks: I’ll evaluate these rounds but an argument is a claim warrant and impact. If you wanna read tricks, I’ll hold you to that same standard. Any "evaluate the debate after x speech" args are silly but I’ve become less opposed to them ig. More substantial “tricky” args like skep, determinism and trivialism are much more persuasive to me than an AC that’s just spikes. Answer CX questions- we all know you know what an apriori is let’s be FR.
Parli Specific Stuff:
Everything above applies to parli too but here are some parli-specific preferences:
- I'll protect the flow but call the POO
- Ask POIs, especially if they are funny. I'm super open to "must take POI" shells if there were no POIs taken.
- I'm cool with you splitting the opp block but I think the MOC has to at least mention the arg if the LOR is going to spend all 4 mins on it.
- If you are reading ev, be prepared to pull it up if the other team calls for it. Otherwise, I'm disregarding the source
- I'm a little confused about disclosure shells being read in parli but disclosing ROTB/ framing prior to the round is probably good if you aren't topical.
Read a yoda k and ill give you 30 speaks
Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise
Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean
Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny. Ill disclose speaks if you ask me to
paradigm got wiped for some reason?
hi im vishnu. i debated at dulles for 4 yrs. i qualled to toc my senior yr w/ 10 bids and made semis.
Start on time. Email chains should be sent AT or before start time
i did every style of debate and am open to anything so do wtv u want just do it well.
and lastly, do NOT read smth just bcs u think i will like it
I don't have any real defaults and I hope I never have to default anything (do judge instruction)
Did this a lot more my senior yr. Policy debaters tend to get the highest speaks in front of me. Love creative solvency deficits and process cps.
Like good competition debates but NEED you to slow down on perm texts.
Just do judge instruction
in policy v k rds i dislike strategies that are solely fwk + ext ow. i do believe the aff should get to weigh case tho
Like/know some pomo. I am not super familiar with most lit bases though so I need good judge instruction.
Hate long overviews. Yap less, lbl more.
Good for this.
Be clear and slow down, these debates are almost entirely analytic and sometimes unflowable
Whoever does the most weighing p much always wins.
I am pretty stingy. I like ppl being funny/sarcastic, good analogies, and strategies ive never seen before and will reward speaks.
You can lose speaks for docbotting, and being mean (in an unfunny way).
if ur hitting a novice don't be distastefully mean but don't hold back in terms of what u wanna read.
I am a parent judge.
no theory, no K's, no complicated phil, no tricks
DO NOT SPREAD, please speak clearly
As a debater, it is general knowledge that arguments made ad hominem would not fly and in some circumstances would invite penalty due to it's inappropriate nature....
More importantly, what you should do would be to prove your case (role and burden fulfilment), engage the spirit of the debate and be very receptive/open-minded.
My name's Folu and I'm currently a freshman at Yale! For some of my debate history, my main event in high school was Lincoln Douglas but I also did some Congress. I've attended a good amount of national debate tournaments throughout my four years so I'm excited to judge you all this weekend!
I don't have too many rules, but I'm mostly trained in traditional debate. If you're going to integrate progressive methods into your speeches like Ks, plans, counter plans, theory, etc. you'll need to explain them extremely well in case. Assume I have absolutely no progressive background. I'm flexible with most things, but if you spread I'll have to drop you. I need to understand your case and if I have no chance of following it then I can't evaluate the round.
To me, the best debate rounds are ones that put the emphasis on weighing impacts. Convince me why your argument matters more and point out how your logic and statistics are stronger than your opponent's, and you'll do well. Also, speaking with some emphasis and intonation can only help you.
I'd be happy at the end of rounds to answer questions related to your round! Remember to relax and have fun and everyone will enjoy our rounds much better.
Debated at University of Pittsburgh
I like judging different things, there are many different styles and many get overlooked or forgotten, so do your thing and do it well. Strategic thinking should always be at the forefront, taking risks is good too. Compare arguments in addition to making/answering them. I have a higher threshold for how you answer presumption in rounds without a plan and will filter a lot of the debate through solvency. That being said, the word 'material' is becoming a pet peeve but I don't blame debaters for that word being so effective when the impact isn't extinction because of how much more insular debate is getting.
I'm more interested in a K that has offense either about the consequences of the plan or the consequences of the process but if you can win your overarching thesis claim outweighs plan/method focus, then go for it.
I don't have any specific feelings about framework as long as you're doing impact comparison. Regardless of whether you are winning a procedural or a terminal impact, it doesn’t really mean you auto win unless you have effectively zero’d/excluded all the opposing team’s offense, so offensive applications of impacts matter, if only from a strategic point of view.
Everything else is pretty round-by-round, please pic out of things, use theory intelligently and capitalize on mistakes and cross-examination early.
Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change the fact that you're still a debater doing debate. Every round is different and every debater debates/interprets arguments differently, so don’t switch up. Popular opinion (in debate) rarely matches reality anyway.
Please think about what is your strongest argument instead of ones that are superfluous, waste time, are unfamiliar to you, or otherwise have no strategic value. I try to give good speaks, but rarely super high. I prefer debates with fewer sheets. Don’t spread faster than is comprehensible and prioritize clarity. Make it make sense.
A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive. Micro-aggressions exist but so do mistakes. Your standard for how to engage them is likely biased and/or strategic. The easiest way to engage is to be a less than terrible person. If you have to worry about that you have more personal work to do.
Anyways, see ya~
I'm a traditional judge who prefers slower speakers who are clear and efficient.
Please use analytical evidence to back up your claims, and establish logical arguments.
I take notes, but make sure to sign-post and weigh. It will make this an easier win for you.
Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
- Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
- College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
- High school and middle school mock trial coach
- College moot court coach
- Founded my university's debate program
- Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
- Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington
General Debate Philosophy:
- Some describe me as a "hipster"; though I enjoy modern philosophy and theoretical arguments, my philosophy of debate centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced.
- I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
- Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that is linked reasonably to the resolution, argued in a traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
- Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're trying to decide between tech and lay.
- I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters actually connect to the framework.
- LARP starts and ends with an L :)
Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can understand it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, you better be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.
I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it is on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.
- Please don't throw the framework debate away.
Kritiks and Theory:
I haven't judged many Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm pretty familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.
- Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because someone happened to mention something was abusive. Save those for something truly egregious.
- I will not vote for disclo. Don't even try it. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2023. Similarly, reading tricks is basically your way of telling me you're scared you can't win the round legitimately. Why would I ever reward that?
- Just putting this here again to remind you: LARP starts and ends with an L :)
Other random stuff:
I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.
- I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.
I debated for Stuyvesant in LD for four years. I've been out of the activity for two years, so try to keep the spreading to about 75%. You may also want to spend a bit more time on overviews than you normally do.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy/Larp - 1
Kritik - 1
High Theory - 2 (1 for Bifo or Baudy)
Framework/Phil - 3
T/Theory - 3
Tricks - 5
All this said, you can read anything in front of me as long as it's not violent/discriminatory and I will evaluate it to the best of my abilities.
With speaks, I'll try to average a 28.5. You'll do better than that If you weigh your offense and give clear overviews. Try to write the rfd for me in your 2nr/ars.
Tech > truth, but not to a fault. I am a college student with a reasonably good understanding of philosophical and political issues, so of course I have my biases. It's going to be harder to convince me of something I don't think is applicable in real life. If you read something sketchy and your opponent drops it, I will grant it to you, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that is exceedingly dumb. Use your best judgement and try to keep everything grounded in empirical and historical context.
Theory Defaults: Drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps (but I will be happy if you go for reasonability). I am generally not a fan of disclosure theory, but there are definitely situations in which I would vote on it. Also, don't read frivolous theory.
ROB: I default to comparative worlds, but don't let that stop you from reading another ROB. This is usually the most interesting meta-debate within a round.
Ks: I was a K debater in high school, so I love these rounds. That said, I'd rather judge a bad policy debate than a bad K debate. If you don't understand the literature you're reading, I won't either. I think overviews and real-world examples/contextualization are key to the K debate, particularly when it comes to the alternative. I will have a hard time voting for you if you win your links but not your alt solvency. If you decide to use the links as independent voters, you will need to prove uniqueness to the aff.
I have a higher burden of proof for (completely) Non-T affs. I generally think topicality is good and I think it's pretty easy to make most Ks topical, especially if you adopt a loose/creative interpretation of topicality. This doesn't mean I won't vote for a Non-T aff, but if your opponent reads T-Framework against you, I'd advise you to interact with the content of the shell. I rarely buy that case outweighs unless you can prove that it would be a performative contradiction for you to be topical.
FW/Phil: I've been getting into analytic philosophy in college, so I may understand these arguments more than I did when I was debating. That said, I'm still not super confident in my ability to evaluate fw debate outside of basics like Kant or Hobbes, so err on the side of over-explanation. I also want to see frameworks with syllogisms, not just random independent justifications.
Policy: Assume I don't have any topic knowledge. I'm fine with counterplans and PICS. I'm not going to vote on a tiny chance of extinction. Larping doesn't mean you can't be creative!
Other things to be aware of:
Use the author's name when extending warrants/case turns.
You can ask questions, but please don't argue with me after I make a decision. It can only hurt you.
Show me, your opponent, and yourself the utmost respect in (and out of) round.
Try to enjoy yourself! In my ideal world, debate is more about experimenting with different ideas and developing a nuanced worldview than any competitive success. If you read something really creative I'll definitely bump your speaks.
I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging. I am not a fan of spreading and fast speaking. If I can't understand, then it is not going on the flow. This is a verbal activity and therefore I will only flow things that are verbally communicated.
I am traditional judge, and don't have experience with progressive arguments, so I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells, or ROBs. I am looking for debaters who can presents a strong case with great logic, evidence and effective refutation of their opponent's case. In order for me to weigh your case effectively, you need to show me which framework is best and how you win under that framework. I like to have crystallization and voters in the 2AR and 2NR - this is especially important. The clearer you make to me why your argument is better and outweighs, the easier it will be for me to vote for you.
I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. I will cast my opinion on an argument if I think it makes zero sense or is well warranted. I am going to judge arguments on their merits.
MTHS ‘22 | WIT ‘26
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
1- Policy and IDPOL/Common Ks/KAFFs, Traditional
2 - TT/Theory
3 - Baudrillard, Uncommon K’s
Strike - Unfair/Uncoordinated cases (i.e. Friv Theory, Spiked Trix)
Hey! I am Nilay Patel, and I debated in LD for 4 years in high school. I also dabbled in other debate events, but I am primarily an LDer. As for judging, I am typically a tabula rasa judge, but I do have some preferences (mainly for understanding purposes).
I have been out of the circuit ever since I stopped debating, so I may be a rusty judge. So, please spread concisely, and make your docs easy to understand. Also, I have not looked at the literature for this topic at all, so lean towards the side of explaining more than less.
Traditional - If you/your opponent is a traditional debater, I will err on the side of a traditional debate unless it is discussed otherwise. I believe that all tech debaters should learn how to debate traditionally, but not all traditional debaters need to learn how to debate tech. I also am very well versed in traditional debate.
Policy - I can understand all sorts of Policy (CPs, Plans, DAs, etc.). I personally did not read too much Policy in high school, but I don’t have trouble understanding it. Also, the cross-applications are somewhat straightforward, so I’ll be able to follow along. Not
Truth Testing/Trix - I really love Truth Testing frameworks, as it allows for a unique debate style to the debate round. Some unique paradoxes/a unique nailbomb AC really make me happy. However, I do not like arguments such as “Do not evaluate anything past the 1N”. Based on my debating philosophy, I will evaluate it, but a simple theory shell will probably make me err to the shell.
Ks - I read a few Ks in high school (such as Model Minority and Psychoanalysis), so I understand how Ks can be used. However, if you are simply using a K to confuse your opponent, I most likely will be confused as well. So, please keep it clear. Also, typically in the debate rounds I have been in, the 2NR is where the Ks make or break the round. If you have a very clean 2NR, I will be very surprised, and may boost your speaker points. Also, to show me that you have read this, if you attach a picture of a Nilla Wafers box to your speech doc, I will boost your speaker points by 0.2.
Theory - I default to YES RVIs, Competing Interps, and Drop the Debater. This doesn’t mean I wont change the way I evaluate the round if you make arguments for it, but I just start off with granting RVIs. As for the interpretations, they MUST be clear. Even if reasonability wins for the round, interpretations carry a massive weight on the debate round, so you cannot be lazy with your interps. Completely off topic, if you folks would like to play a 10 minute Rapid Chess game instead of doing the debate round, both of you must agree upon it, and the winner will a 29.8 while the loser will receive a 29.5 in speaks.
As always, any sort of intentional bigotry will not be tolerated, and will result in an L25 as well as a report to tab.
30 - You probably are deep elims in the tournament.
29.5 - You probably are breaking/are in early elims.
29 - You probably will have a positive record.
28.5 - You probably will have a negative record.
Hi! My name is Sophia (she/her)! I'm wishing you the best of luck on your rounds, you got this!
I debated and judged debates during high school, and here are a couple of my preferences:
Be respectful! Each of you have worked so hard to be here, so let's make sure we respect each other. Think before we speak and make sure we don't say anything offensive, make rude gestures, or interrupt each other without rhyme or reason.
Use your speech to tell me why you should win this round!
I vote off the flow.
More than anything, have fun! You are gonna do amazing!
firstname.lastname@example.org thats my email before you ask.
I have sections below specific to each category, so just scroll and look for the bolded section you are interested in.
Experience: I am currently the head coach for Neenah high school Speech & Debate (but currently only assisting in LD/PF... if that makes sense? I do all the other things) and have been a coach for the last 6 years. I have students who compete locally as well as nationally- we had the national champion at NSDA in Congress, and a Quarterfinalist in LD, a national competitor in Speech, middle school nats nationa runner up....so I have judged all over the place. This is my ninth year as a judge ('22-'23). I judge all categories, except varsity policy. I was not a debater in school, so I have a more basic understanding of the more obscure things that go on in debate.
"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"
*******Update for Yale- I broke my dominant hand, and can't write. I take short notes by typing, but be as clear as you can about your points since I have to do this from memory =(
Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.
I wasn't a debater- explain things clearly or I drop arguments I don't understand. ***note on that- I understand the terms of debate (link, turn, impact, etc), just not more niche philosophies and less popular arguments***
Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me
Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best strat with me
Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time.
I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.
Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.
Okay, I love these little things I have seen on other paradigms, so hopefully this helps.
For your pref sheets: (1 being top pref, just to be clear)
K's 1<-------------------------------X------>5 (I like them, but I feel like I am not a good judge for them)
Policy – 1<----X--------------------------------->5 /strike
Phil – 1<-------------------X------------------>5
Tricks – 1<-------------------------------------X>5 Actually... X. <== I HATE them. Please don't run them.
Trad – 1<--X----------------------------------->5
See below for more in-depth explanations divided by category
Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.
Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really a "bonus," but I remember them when I am doing my rankings- which helps your placement)
PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, but a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.
Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.
Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session.
Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.
Preferences: Please be clear and professional in round. I hate that the attitudes and behaviors seen in other styles is seeping into PF. As noted in other sections, I was not a debater, so don't expect me to know every single term you share. Generally, if I make a somewhat confused face, define your term.
A few things I love to see: Please, collapse arguments. It's so awesome to watch a veteran team (or even a novice team) weigh arguments and determine the largest impacts and points in the round and weigh them against each other, rather than slowly increase their speed in through the debate to try and get every single argument in to the last speech. Spreading has no place in PF- stop trying to make it happen, its not going to happen.
A few things I hate in rounds: Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. If you want cards, fine... but ask for them all at once and get it over with quickly. It is super annoying to go through CX and then have a 15 minute "card trade" before getting back into debate.
Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I will flow everything and I will say clear if necessary, but only once before I stop flowing you. I was not a debater, so my knowledge of really weird arguments is lacking. Let me say that again. I WAS NOT A DEBATER- EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments. In terms of speed I judge a lot of policy, so I would say I am comfortable with most speeds seen in LD.
A few things I love to see in round: Please weigh & tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be. Signpost clearly- I love hearing you tell me exactly what the "uniqueness" is, the "link" and the "impact. It makes it much easier for me to organize my flow. If you have nearly identical frames, I love to see kids recognize that and show how they can fit into each other's frame, rather than making the round about whether I should weigh using "limiting suffering" or "increasing societal welfare." Let's be honest, those are pretty similar, and if you fit in one you probably can fit in the other.
A few things I hate in rounds: Swearing- This seems like an obvious one, but is lacks professionalism if it is not needed to actually make the points. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. Last thing: if you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.
Preferences: I do not like any tricks or unprofessional behavior in round, but snark is always okay. I prefer not to hear teams talking to each other while their opponents are presenting, as it is distracting to me as a judge. Open speeches are a no-go. If you don't have your own stuff ready, then take prep time. If you're out of prep time, organize yourself better next time. I generally only judge novice policy once in a while, so be aware you might be my only round this year, and I probably don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area.
I am fine with spreading, (probably a 6/10 for speed) however if you are not understandable, I will only tell you clear once before I stop flowing you. Please be aware of your own speaking issues- for example, if you have braces and rubber bands, you probably should not spread, since you will be almost unintelligible. On the topic of spreading- I understand it is a strategy to get as many arguments in as possible, but be aware that a large breadth of arguments you do not understand is basically useless.
Impact calc is huge for me. If I don't clearly hear you explain why your impacts are bigger or more important, I judge completely by what is on my flow. DA's and CP's are fine in a round, and good experience for a novice/Post nov. I always flow cross x, and keep track of questions asked. I do not want to see a framework in novice policy.
Misc. Stuff for any style debate:
-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28 for speaks.
-I don't flow things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.
-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.
-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.
TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.
I am a college student at UGA studying mechanical engineering. I did debate for 2 years at midtown high school in Atlanta, GA. My Pronouns are He/Him. If you're starting an email chain start it here (email@example.com).
I believe what separates LD from other events are frameworks, that being said if you run interesting Phil I'll probably give you extra speaks. LD is not just util(not that it isn't applicable or that I won't vote for it) I want interesting framework debates.
Strike- friv theory, tricks
Generally tech>truth unless the argument is bad.
Spreading is fine but if we are online try to go a bit slower. I'll say clear twice after that I'm no longer listening if you don't slow down/speak more clear.
I don't care about the quantity of things that you have, I care more about the quality. Just cause you have 5 cards all saying the same snippet doesn't mean that always beats out a valid explanation of one card. Simple as that. (This doesn't meant quantity doesn't matter at all but don't expect to win just by reading me 10 cards actually explain them)
Actually Explain your Value and VC I don't just want to hear "util" "maximize well being" actually explain to me what that means.
I like trad debate considering it is what I primarily did however, note a few things. If you're doing trad debate explanations are key, explain how your connections link to your value, explain what your cards are saying, ect.
Its fine I struggle a bit more with keeping up but I can manage just don't power tag, and send the doc.
I'm fine with theory I find it kinda fun though I can find friv theory a bit ridiculous and not very fun to watch so just don't but normal theory can be interesting.
I still want to hear K's and I will judge them I'm just not very well versed in many K's by all means you can still run them just explain a bit more. (I have run setcol and poco so I'll understand those a bit better)
SAY ANYTHING RACIST , HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, ECT. AND THE ROUND WILL BE STOPPED AND YOU WILL INSTANTLY HAVE AN L + THE LOWEST SPEAKS POSSIBLE.
Hello, my name’s Sarah (she/her) and I’m a second-year at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. I did debate all four years of high school, mainly focusing on LD but with experience in PF and World Schools as well.
As an LD debater I focused on traditional and policy debate and don't have much experience with K's or theory. That being said, I am open to hearing most kinds of arguments, and will do my best to evaluate them (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic or argument knowledge. If I don't understand the argument, even if you "won" on the flow, I won't vote for you.
Please don't spread.
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org, but if you go too fast or aren't clear when reading I won't fill in the gaps for you.
Other things to keep in mind:
- IMPORTANT: debate should be an inclusive space. I will drop you and give you low speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory in any other way.
- For online debate I would prefer it if you have your camera on.
- I flow. Make your arguments clear and PLEASE signpost. If I don’t know where you are there is no way for me to be able to understand your argument or properly write it on my flow.
- Have good evidence ethics. I might ask for cards at the end if needed so please make sure your evidence actually says what you are saying it does and that you aren’t misconstruing or lying about what your author is saying.
- Your last speech NEEDS to consist of voters and weighing. If this doesn’t happen it makes the round very difficult to evaluate. Also no new arguments your last speech, I will not consider them.
- Bonus speaks if you make me laugh.
If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!
hello, i'm enya. i debated for southlake carroll in LD for 4 years, got 4 bids, and broke at the TOC my senior year. i'll keep this short.
policy - 1
theory/topicality - 1-2
phil - 3, kant is a 1
k - 3 (cap and security is a 1, pomo is a 4)
tricks - 3
i primarily debated policy style arguments until my senior year. my senior year i explored kant, theory, and tricks.
- make the round easy for me to evaluate
- don't extend a bunch of arguments and expect me to piece them together
- don't steal prep
- be nice to novices and don't read arguments u don't understand
- be respectful to your opponents and me
- if your a girl/gender minority in debate - please dont hesitate to reach out to me for advice!
Hey! My name is Abhived and I am a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign!
I am very very expressive. I frown, stick my eyebrow up, and do other rlly obvious things when I don't like an argument. Please do not go for said argument. I will note vote on the silence pic or any other argument that was not read.
No Google Docs! Download the Doc and send it in the chain or file share.
Please slow down!I have not thought about this activity since mid-2022. This means you should go half your speed and do a lot more judge instructions if you want to win.
The less time you take in your speech to win the higher speaks you will get. If you win the debate with more than half of the time left in your speech you will get a W30 in front of me, regardless of who your opponent is.
If you are debating against T/Theory in the 2A extend case. Bare minimum.
My email is email@example.com
I am a good judge if:
- You are good at the K
- You enjoy fun tricks + friv theory debates
- You are really good at explaining your stock Phil position
- 2N on Framework
- You wrap the round up cleanly and quickly
I am a mid judge if:
- You are meh at explaining your phil
- You are a legit theory/T debater
I am a bad judge if:
- You are an intense policy debater. I judged one good policy round this year and it made my head hurt.
- We are in an intense phil v phil debate
- You over adapt and are reading buzzwords for a K that no one understands
- You go too fast- I am so so bad at flowing
A couple more things:
- No misgendering- speaks will get slashed after the second time and I will be more than happy to down you if your opponent asks me to
- Plz don't read the Small Schools Disad on T fw- I think that the argument is poop
- Postrounding is good. If I can not defend my decision I probably did not make the right decision + you are holding me accountable. Don't be super rude and we won't have any issues.
Hi, I'm Dhruv!
I did LD debate for Proof School, cleared at most tournaments, and went to the TOC my junior year. I now study applied math and computer science at Brown University (class of 2027).
I read mostly policy and theory arguments, sometimes read tricks, and dabbled a little with Ks and phil. Read whatever you want.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Prefs Shortcut (based on what I think I'm good at judging)
1. policy, theory
3. phil, Ks
-I will vote on basically anything that's warranted (no bigotry). Even though I have opinions, I will try my best to be a blank slate.
-Debate is a game. Play the game to win.
-The content of high school debates should probably be PG-13 (sporadic cursing is fine).
-Tech>truth, but to be honest, the tech/truth distinction is kind of silly; if an argument relies on a fact that's blatantly false, i.e. "WW2 ended in 1965" I am probably going to disregard it, but I won't intervene against subjective arguments like "communism good." As a rule of thumb, arguments with better quality warrants are easier to win.
-Please don't make debate the oppression olympics.
-Tell me what impacts matter. Weighing wins debates.
-I'm not gonna vote on arguments pertaining to the identities of the debaters in round, or arguments about events that occurred out of round (other than disclosure theory).
-Compiling is prep, but sending isn't (unless you're taking a while, in which case I'll get a bit annoyed).
-Don't be afraid to impact turn Ks (the no bigotry rule applies though).
-"Independent voting issues" need to have a warrant, independent weighing/framing mechanism, and an explanation of why they outweigh in the first speech they are read in.
I will try to base speakers points off of strategy only (the exception is when you're a jerk). I've decided to not vote on arguments pertaining to speaker points because you could just say "give us both 30 speaks" and then your opponent would concede it and that defeats the purpose of speaks. Anyways, here's a rough scale:
30: You displayed an astonishingly high level of technical proficiency, argument innovation, and knowledge in the subject matter of the debate.
29.5-29.9: You did something really creative/entertaining and showed an argumentative proficiency that will likely get you to mid-late out-rounds.
29-29.4: Your strategy was great, and you'll probably clear.
28.5-28.9: Barely clearing or even record.
28-28.4: You're below average for this tournament and your strategy wasn't great.
27.5-27.9: Your strategy had significant errors, and you didn't really understand the arguments you read.
27.4 or below: You did something that pissed me off.
I will say clear 3 times before I stop flowing. Pause a little between cards, slow down on analytics, and enunciate every word.
Here are some loose opinions I have about specific positions:
-Do not assume I have any topic knowledge.
-The plan text should be clear and concise.
-Evidence comparison is a must in close debates, so know your evidence well. It's of course fine to read cards that other people cut, but make sure you've read and understood the articles.
-Perms are a test of competition.
-Do impact calc and tell me how I should evaluate the CP (i.e. sufficiency framing, judge kick, etc.)
-I err aff on cheaty counterplan competition. That means I'll have a lower threshold for functionally intrinsic perms.
-I know more about cap and set col than other Ks.
-Don't be afraid to impact turn their model of debate.
-Use concrete examples when explaining your alt. Do not assume I know what "traversing the fantasy," "embracing a cartography of refusal," "joining the party," etc. are.
-I went for vague alts bad a lot, simply because most people don't know how to respond to it. That being said, affs that read this shell often violate their own interp by reading semi-vague plan texts. So if you're gonna go for it, add specification below your plan text or something like that.
-The fiat distinction is arbitrary.
-I don't understand why people read 1-minute-long, buzzword-filled overviews at top speed. I don't flow them. They are completely useless and are often filled with incomprehensible run-on sentences. Do actual line-by-line please.
-The word "reasonability" without any contextualization is not enough for me to drop the shell.
-Please do weighing between semantics and pragmatics, limits and PICs, etc.
-I enjoy topic specific T debates more than ones about bare plurals.
-Slow down in the 2nr please, especially if it's docced.
-Paragraph shells are fine, but you still need paradigm issues.
-I default DTD, no RVIs, and competing interps. All of these can easily be changed.
-Weighing is as important in theory debates as it is in other debates.
-Yes, you can read your 7 frivolous shells in front of me, but don't make the debate messy.
-Slow down on analytics please.
-Fine with these debates, just slow down so I don't miss extemped arguments.
-They need a claim, warrant, and impact, just like any other argument. Paradoxes without explicit ballot implications are hard to vote on.
-If they ask for the a prioris in CX, be straight up about them (though asking "What's an a priori?" as a joke is funny).
-While I never really got into this style of debate, I do enjoy reading and discussing philosophy and I'm down to judge these debates, especially if you're reading something new/innovative.
-Most familiar with Kant and Pragmatism, err on the side of over-explanation for other ethical theories.
-I ideologically err neg in these debates if the K-aff has no connection to the topic or if it's a generic identity aff.
-If I don't know what the aff does I'm not voting for it.
-The burden is on the aff to prove why debating the topic is undesirable.
-Presumption is an underrated tool in these debates.
-Framework 2NRs should try to be specific to the round.
-I like TVAs and am persuaded by well-written ones.
-If you're going to "perform" in some way, make it clear how I'm supposed to evaluate it. Just randomly playing a song or reading a poem and then not bringing it up in the 1ar is sorta useless.
That's all I have to say for now, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask (by email or before the round).
Contact me at: email@example.com
tl;dr — I was in the game not too long ago, and will be able to help you out!
Debated in High School (4+ yrs) — Primarily LD, but have also competed in PF, Impromptu, Extemp, OO events
Graduated Broad Run HS in 2023
- Great Communicator Debate Series National Finalist (2023)
- LD State Champion VHSL (2021)
Judging Style (LD):
Tabula rasa → convince me why your framework matters
- Tech > Truth ; that being said, understanding truth is the core function of debate so if you can skillfully pursue that in a round and tie it to your position — you've got my vote
- Flow and delivery are BOTH important and weigh into my decision
Flow: Signpost and tie back to FW → Clarity will serve you well; use words "cross-apply", "extend" in refutation
VOTER ISSUES (weigh, crystallize, etc.)
Calling drops are next to meaningless till they're connected to your flow/extended with the impact through-line
- Delivery: No Spreading, but I can handle speed → Debate is a persuasive event; persuasion requires comprehension
Lean strongly towards traditional LD style, but not opposed to progressive debate. You’ll just have to go extra far to make your case/refutation comprehensible and clear. As long as you can do that, I’m impressed!
Core Values of the Round:
Poise and respect during the round are of utmost priority → Respect does not mean letting your opponent swamp up all your cross-ex time; balance of assertion and tact
Have fun and convey passion! : Remember that the round is your time to advocate for a high-stakes topic, so take your role seriously and have fun! Energy is infectious and is what makes this experience worth it :)
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.
I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.
Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.
Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.
Last updated - 9/22/23
Garland HS - '20
The University of Texas at Austin - '24
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 2
K - 2-3
Phil - 2-3
Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)
TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom
Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)
People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox
debate is a game
Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.
CX is binding
DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)
1AR theory is cool
Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)
(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)
Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)
- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.
- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.
- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.
- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.
- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(
- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.
General notes I think are important:
- BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.
- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.
- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.
- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.
- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.
- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.
- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.
- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.
- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.
- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.
- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.
- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.
- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with
- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!
- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.
- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)
- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.
- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.
- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.
- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics
- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.
- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.
- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.
- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.
- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.
- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!
- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.
- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.
- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.
- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.
- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.
- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.
- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.
- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.
- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.
- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?
- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.
- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.
- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.
- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.
- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.
- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.
- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!
- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.
- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).
- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.
- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.
- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.
- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.
- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.
- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.
- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.
- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.
- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.
- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)
- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.
- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.
- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.
- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.
- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.
I'll up speaks for doing the following:
- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)
- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality
- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1
I am a parent judge with a moderate number of tournaments. I discourage progressive argumentation, including theory, Ks, etc... I value speaking at a reasonable pace and logical presentations. Include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My email is email@example.com
2023 NDT Champion
2023 CEDA Champion
I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.
The Black Chorus Sings
**I am notoriously bad at remembering to put comments and RFD's in these days so if I don't get to it before the tournament closes and you would like feedback, please email me (^) w/ the subject line of "LD round x at x tournament" and I will send you my RFD and feedback if you would like. If I give an oral RFD-you should take notes and not expect me to email that to you. I want this to be as educational for you as it possibly can be so please ask q's if you have them!
Hi! my name is Shannon Rodgers (she/her) and I was an LD debater for 3 years at Oakland Catholic in Pittsburgh, which was a relatively traditional circuit. Having said that, I am down with a progressive round if you and your opponent both agree to a progressive round. I'm fine with speed, just send me the doc. I also prefer when we don't spread in rebuttle speeches (I think it minimizes the academic value of actually engaging with new ideas brought up in round.
Another little side note: I coached novices all of last year so my feedback tends to be less of my opinions on the round and more technical and strategical stuff I notice throughout the round.
How to win in my rounds:
~Overall. I do not care what you do/ run in the round so long as you explain it well and do not try to create an unfair debate space.
~Make the round easy for me to follow--if you and your partner create a sloppy round it is impossible for me to come up with a clear verdict because I will be confused as to what I just witnessed.
~I love a good value debate and I will weigh all arguments from both sides under the winning value structure so make sure you don't disregard the value structure. Additionally, if you don't understand your opponents value structure, use cross-ex to figure it out; if I am telling you a value debate is important in this round do not spend 3 minutes trying to trap your opponent during cross instead of figuring out their understanding and usage of their value structure!
~I also find theory debate really interesting, but you must explain it well and make it applicable to the round for me to buy it.
~If you gain substantial offense in cross-ex and you want me to weigh it in the round, you must bring it up in the speech immediately following cross because I will not be flowing cross
~Impact your arguments. It is your job as a debater to tell me why I care about some stat you just told me; if you don't tell me why I should care, I won't care.
~Dropped arguments will only effect the decision if your opponent brings up the dropped argument and makes it evident to me why that argument was important both as a claim and as an impact
~I care about voting issues (voters)--be confident and tell me why you won, especially if you think you won on a point that was not heavily debated throughout the round
~I will be voting off of the flow. Make this easy for me--if you're extending an argument tell me, I will not do this work for you. Also, do not respond to an opponent's argument saying that their argument is non-unique or that your argument outweighs, again you need to tell me why; if you fail to tell me "why" this says to me as a judge "crap, my opponent is right and I have nothing to say in response to this point"
~I reserve the right to call for any evidence during the round or at the end if their is a disagreement over the validity of a card
Ways to lose in my rounds:
~Being a jerk--this pretty much goes without saying but if in anyway you are purposefully a jerk in a round (examples: spreading and running a K on a novice, intentionally misgendering your opponent, being blatantly racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, etc., or if you're a guy, mansplaining). You get the point, I want to see a nice, clean round that is based on merit and education, not on one person yelling or personally attacking their opponent
~Some cases will contain sensitive subject matter. If you think your case may need a trigger warning, it probably does and if you are unsure, please ask me personally prior to the round. If there is a chance your case does contain sensitive subject matter, it is your responsibility to have a back-up case or at least a "PG" version of your case in the event that you opponent is uncomfortable with your initial case.
~More importantly than anything I just said, HAVE FUN! And if you have any questions after the round, please feel free to ask me in the cafeteria afterwards or email me; I will typically keep my flows!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------these are my personal opinions--I won't drop you or lower your speaks if you run these things, but I won't be as excited about the round or your case
**I am personally so over climate change debate or climate change being the single voting issue. Literally any and every resolution (both aff and neg) has a climate change impact to assume that affirming or negating a single resolution will save the world from climate change is nieve and unrealistic. I'm fine with climate change being one of many voting issues, but it should not be the one and only reason you win
*** I AM ALSO SO SO SO INCREDIBLY OVER EXTINCTION ARGUMENTS I WANT TO SCREAM EVERYTIME A ROUND COMES DOWN TO THAT. at this point its so non-unique and is something that we have come up with a way to link every topic and every case to extinction. I get it, I'm going to die by extinction, tell me why I should care about a policy for the here and now
UPDATE FOR WSD @ TFA:
I am pretty new to world's but I judged every single round from prelims to finals at the Berkeley tournament, so my experience is not null.
Big things for me: I like clash, I want yall to answer the question, and I reward good on the spot analysis of your opponents argument, don't get so caught up in your case that your forget to answer your opponent's argument. Also I am fine with speed, but I don't think its necessary in worlds and honestly I prefer speech's that are stylistic and given like a PA. Please let me know if you have any questions and congrats on making it to state!
IE: I am pretty open to any stylistic choices or preparations of a speech/script, it is an Interpretation after all, so creative choices are welcome!
Extemp- You should have ample amount of evidence for the three main claims you decide to make. Please have your speech as structured as possible as it makes it easier for me to follow along and judge. It’s better for your speech to run 5 minutes, but be clear and conscie than for you to stay up there for seven minutes rambling on.
OO/INFO- There should be at least three sources in your speech. I don’t mind when you try and break the very formulaic structure of OO or info, but I should be able to easily follow along. I.E. you dont have to go “But first, then, finally” but hey whatver works for you, works for me, speak clear, be confident, and have fun up there.
HI- Use your space, HI is about physical humor as much as its about the jokes you are telling! Racist/misogynistic/Xenophobia etc humor is not funny. It’s not.
DI- Be careful with your content, DI’s are serious and I understand that, but be careful with how graphic you get. I am not a squimish judge so curse words dont bother me and mature material is fine, just try and be as tasteful as possible. And DONT mis-represent a character I.E. if you are playing a forty year old mom who just suffered the loss of her son, thats fine, but if you are speaking for an identity you cannot identify with, maybe not. DONT USE SLURS. Even for effect. It’s not needed. Use the space and be comfortable with silence. There is a lot of pauses and silence in DI and when its intentional l it works really well, so dont be afraid of it!
PR/PO- Don’t let your binder fall flat. I don’t think there is one right way to hold the binder, but there are a million wrong ways. It’s awesome when you find a way to incorporate the binder for techy stuff, but its def not necessary.
Your teaser should give me a clue about what your piece is about, (AND IT SHOULD BE MEMORIZED) it doesnt have to be a summary, but a couple of lines to let me know where the piece ie headed is great!
TIME. Be concious of it. Don’t run 10:29 or 10:30, once the fist is up WRAP IT UP.
If you forget your piece, take a moment to pause and collect your thoughts, try not to show it in your face and dont worry about it too much.
Be respectful to other performers, if you are on your phone, eating loudly, sleeping, or being distracting in anyway. I might factor it into your rank. It’s not cool, respect eachothers work.
I debated at Liberty University and currently a grad student at James Madison. I won a speaker award as a novice in highschool, so you can say I am pretty experienced in debate. Also, Octo-Finals of the NDT.
I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.
Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.
In terms of arguments, I am not the best judge in the back of a room in a policy throw-down type debate. That said, if I do end up in the back of your room, please slow down when explaining the scenarios and just unpack for me. In terms of K on K debate, I am fine. In terms of Clash, I prefer to judge those types of debate.
FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):
I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.
Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.
However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.
For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.
This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.
Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.
Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.
Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.
Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.
PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:
These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.
When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.
I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.
THEORY / T:
Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.
One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.
I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.
COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:
I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.
PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.
Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.
I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.
Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are best at will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.
Also, be nice to your opponents. It's not cool to be mean and talking down to your opponents can honestly hurt them both emotionally and physically, and just sets a bad example for younger debaters to adopt those practices. Sometimes, being nice to your opponents/judges, even when you feel they don't deserve it, can be the wisest choice in that moment. And if you gotta be a jerk, you can just yell at me instead.
Arguments: I do not have a preference for the type of arguments you run as long as they are argued well with evidence and have a strong connection to the value/VC debate. If you DROP any arguments; I will assume you conceded the point. Please do not debate under the presumption that I expect you to be able to argue all points of the debate for you to win, I’m looking for a ranking of importance and argument weighing. Two types of weighing: evidence weighing and overall argument weighing, which is a part of voter issues. Please give some form of voter issues in your last speech.
Speed: I'm perfectly fine if you speak fast within reason. I need to be able to note down key points and arguments so be sure that speaking fast does not make you lose substantial clarity or lead to spreading. If you lose clarity as you speak faster, I would advise you prioritize speaking clearly and with enunciation.
Misc: If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.
Please DO NOT get into a deep definition debate, I find this as a waste of time and that it detracts from the more important parts of a debate. That being said, if there are any egregious discrepancies on definitions please address them briefly and concisely.
Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points (unless the debate becomes extremely one-sided).
Experience: I did debate for four years throughout high school, primarily Lincoln Douglas.
Please send your speech docs to firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a lay judge, don't read anything that can't be explained with ease.
I am not comfortable with anything too fast (i.e. don't spread, keep speeches conversational). Try to keep speeches to a point where I can take notes without feeling overwhelmed.
Please give clear voters!
Philosophy - 1
Theory - 1
Non-Identity Ks - 1/2
T - 2
Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them
Policy - 5/Strike
General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.
- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.
- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.
- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.
- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.
- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them
- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.
Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.
I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.
T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.
T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.
Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.
Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.
Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.
Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.
Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.
How do I get a 30?
I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:
1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC
2) A good analytic PIC
3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting
4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before
5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well
6) Successfully going for an RVI
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.
No spreading, I will most likely vote you down for spreading.
Please keep each other in check on time, I would like you to use your own timers. For online debate please do not make your timers full volume.
I am a new judge, some things I would like to see:
Warrant your arguments - make sure to elaborate and make it as clear as possible why your evidence in each contention sustains your value, and/or your warrant on your opponent's evidence.
Speed - I am new to judging LD and I won't be able to keep up if you spread - spell things out for me, make me feel what you are debating for. Do not spread, I will not be able to understand you.
Signpost - It will help me to take better notes and decisions if you signpost before your speeches.
Judge instruction - explain to me why I should vote aff or neg.
Don't run super complex phil cases or kritiks, I won't be able to follow.
Strake Jesuit '23
Finaled TOC and Won Dukes and Bailey
Add me to the email chain although I prefer speechdrop: email@example.com
I'll vote on literally anything that isn't explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant.
As a debater I read policy or kant affirming, and everything from psychoanalysis to log con negating. I think I can adjudicate every argument, but I am predispositioned against some more than others.
I'm probably on the harsher side of speaks for the LD circuit but I just dislike inflation. If you give a great speech don't worry your speaks will be quite good.
- Do whatever you want. I want good weighing and good evidence.
- Slow down on analytics in the 1AR and 2NR.
- Impact turns are cool but don't just soley read huge amounts of evidence and call it day - there needs to be quite good 2NR explanation of complex things, like economic concepts in a cap good/bad debate.
- Case debate should probably always make it into the 2NR, and a good aff that can beat it back will be rewarded.
- DA + Case 2NRs are my favorite
- Slow down when you're docbotting theory analytics, if I can't flow it I won't evaluate it
- I don't like judging frivolous theory that is ridiculous (something like shoes or sleds), but other theory arguments that policy judges might find "frivolous" I would be receptive to (Unified solvency advocate, spec, PICs bad) for 1AR theory
- Please weigh some in the 1AR, 2AR weighing is very new most times and not that persuasive
- Nebel T is perfectly fine, case lists on both sides are very persuasive.
- More policy T shells about words in the resolution are also great, and I need good 2nr vs 2ar judge instruction and evidence comparison.
- I'm more familiar with these kritiks as read in debate (in no particular order): Afro Pessimism, Psychoanalysis,, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism.
- I really don't understand super high theory Ks and probably will not make a great decision on them.
- You still need to warrant and explain your arguments very well. I will not use prior knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
- Impact turning/Straight turning Ks are super cool as well (Humanism, Heg Good, Cap Good etc)
- Flag K tricks
- No biases but K debaters should be very technical, and 2ARs should collapse effectively and need defense to the TOP no matter the 2AR
- Please have specific links or do very specific link analysis to the aff with generic links
- Lean neg on TFW but can be persuaded by good case extrapolations and persuasive defense
- 2NRs need to do interaction with case whether it be explicit or work on the shell itself
- Read Kant a lot as a debater, didn't care enough for the lit
- Contention level debates get muddled very easy, and as straight refs become the norm I need a lot of judge instruction
- Err on the side of explanation for non Kant Util debates
- Answer CX questions
- Collapses need good weighing and interactions with the rest of the flow
- I won't do work for you
- Be organized
- If I couldn't catch it, so couldn't your opponent
- Like less tricky strats like Log Con
- I really dislike debaters who stake rounds on really tiny violations- I think staking should be middle in the paragraph, clipping, strawpersonning, and more egregious offenses.
- If you do stake it though, no takebacks, and the loser gets a L20.
- Challenges being presented in a shell format will be adjudicated as such.
Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! If you are disclosing I would prefer you use file share or speech drop. Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm.
Substance im tech over truth. Theory im truth over tech.
BE NICE! One thing that i feel happens alot more in circuit debate than locals are people being rude or down right abusive to their opponents. Please be nice. Debate is a game at the end of the day, and aggression will not make you better at it. Have passion but not anger.
There are some things to keep in mind. 1) I come from a traditional background. I am ok with you going fast and running whatever you want, but i may evaluate the round slightly different than someone who comes from a prog background. I really want you to tell me why you win. I dont need super slow voters, but i want you to either weigh really well or tell me why an arg is a round winner. At the UK opener my number 1 comment was not getting enough round analysis on why the debater won the round. Flow is great, but i need a clear reason to vote if you want to better your chances.
Im ok with speed, that doesnt mean im not mortal. If it is unclear or not well organized then i will not have a perfect flow. I can only evaluate the round based on what gets on my flow, so dont think ok with speed means lose organization and clarity.
ROTB or explicit k framing is a must. I will not do the work for you on this. Also im skeptical of alts, if they arent explained in the NR i wont just give them to you. I also dont like "reject the aff alts", more creative/ more specific is better.
I dont like PICs. They have to be really good for me to vote on them.
I typically dont like theory or t. If there is legit abuse then run it and i will evaluate it, but if its a time suck or a speech filler than dont run it please. Theory is a tool not a weapon, please treat it as such. I am usually more willing to listen to theory from the aff (condo or speed bad) than from the neg. It takes a lot for me to vote on T.
I like pre speech disclosure, but im not a fan of pre round disclosure in LD. I dont think the neg needs extra prep time in LD like they do in Policy. I wont vote on disclosure theory unless you dont get the doc before the speech at all, didnt ask for it, and your opponent is spreading. If it doesnt meet those three criteria i wont vote on it.
I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school debate.
I am a tabula rasa judge. I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great. (If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.
- Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
- Roadmap and SignPost
- Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.
I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff.
QOL is not a framework. If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.
You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy.
I’m a former HS LD debater, current Junior in College. Preface: There's too much stuff to go over in text and I don't presume to have considered nearly enough scenarios, so you can ask as many questions as you want before round, I don't mind at all.
If either debater just straight up isn't comfortable with any progressive stuff then I would prefer it if we stayed away from it. If you still have to, then go ahead but I have to think your explanation is clear enough that the other debater could reasonably figure out a way to respond. Otherwise, I think it's abusive.
I'll pretty much evaluate any arg you want to bring to the table. But one thing to keep in mind when doing so is I haven't actively debated in 3 years so my ability to properly follow any new or niche args you bring is mostly dependent on whether or not I can understand your perspective. So basically don't throw a bunch of tech jargon that I haven't actively used in 3 years and expect it to stick.
I'm fine with K's, T-shells, CP's, basically anything but performance. Performance cause I don't think I can fairly evaluate it.
K's - the link has to be super clear and can't be tangential. I kind of subscribe to the idea that unless an analogy/link is close to a direct 1 for 1 then it's not tenable. Kind of like how technically almost anything can be an analogy to Christ or Hitler. If I think your K is abusive along those lines of too much extrapolation and your opponent calls you out for it, I'll probably weigh that heavily. So just gut check whether or not you think your K is actively relevant.
Tricks - Go for it, if the opponent is able to somewhat prove that it's abusive and you just respond with "nuh-uh people run it all the time" then I'm gonna dock you for it.
If you spread without clearly enunciating, I will ask you to speak more clearly, slow down, and restart your speech. I'd prefer if it didn't get to that point, but if nothing changes - I'll just do my best and I'll evaluate what I can understand.
60% Tech, 40% Truth - I vote Tech but I think truth is a valid argument and gut reasonability checks are fair if they are justified. I don't like the tech vs truth evidence credibility rabbit hole unless that becomes the entire debate. Most of the time I'll wash that and try to vote off other args.
I don't read philosophy anymore and I don't follow much of current debate standards, but I have a pretty heavy background.
I don't like hyper specific jargon in general because I think it just makes debate more inaccessible and doesn't translate into any useful skill. This doesn't mean don't use debate terms but if you bring up a philosophy term specific to your case then you better explain it - presume I've never heard of it because that's how I'll evaluate it.
You can postround me, but I'll dock your speaks if it fails. And by postrounding I mean if I completely missed an argument - not arguing against me. Keep in mind everyone thinks differently and has a totally different internal scale on every single decision. There is no universal correct ruling and every decision I make is ultimately based on my own internal scale. And you're probably not gonna change that. So postrounding is only reserved for if I just forgot about something.
Also if you just seem too rude or aggressive in round I'll dock your speaks. Debate should never feel intimidating or like bullying.
Good luck and have fun!
I am a parent judge. I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.
I am parent judge who is interested in hearing the arguments (aff/neg) and how kids present their case, their rebuttals and how they handle their demeanor in such conditions.
I am a lay judge with some experience. Please no progressive or spreading.
I like to see well spoken and researched individuals.
I look forward being a judge for your round.
Parent of a varsity LD debater and have been judging LD for three years now.
Well versed in traditional debate. I prefer clear and confident communication. Make sure to address your opponents points- both framework and contention, so it becomes easier to evaluate the round. Also make sure to support your arguments with evidence. Simply put, I am willing to evaluate any traditional argument provided it is supported by good evidence and explanation.
Thank you and enjoy your tournament.
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Recently, I have been judging rounds quite frequently over the last 4 years, mostly in PF and LD, but I am also familiar with this year's policy topic.
Speed is fine as long as it's clear. I will buy k's as long as the links are clearly explained and contextualized. I will only buy theory if there's clear in-round abuse. Leave tricks for Halloween.
Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm sid thandassery from flower mound high school '23
email@example.com -- reach out if you have questions both about the round or in general for debate i'd love to help!
i do care abt safety if there is something problematic in the round plz let me know and ill try my best to help
the most important things for you reading this is
- i love fairness first arguments and find myself voting on those and theoretical arguments in general frequently
- i am not super super fast with flowing so i will backflow for you but i would appreciate being as clear as possible but you can still go full speed
- weigh a lot because i might not be familiar with your specific argument so weighing and explanation will go a long way.
if ur debating a lay debater idc what u do your speaks will not suffer either
larp - 2 - i saw this a lot; i like this a lot but i read whole res affs my whole career bc nebel is true - i will do my best but things like pt in a vacuum debates might lose me a bit ie if ur getting into something a little more in depth like super deep link differential analysis just explain things a little more because policy wasnt my primary focus... death good fine spark fine etc -- against a k just win that you get to weigh case leverage extinction answer the links and thesis claim make disads to the alt put like two decent perms down and youll probably win
phil - 2 - i read some phil affs like sentiments, polls, kant, and was interested in others but sometimes this can feel overcomplex skep was in like most of my 1ns tho i like it -- i like extinction ow a lot but if youre winning on the flow then ur winning (phil vs k is also something im not too experienced with but phil should just either go for ideal theory good because it is and have real examples of their framework being deployed, and non ideal theories should just make it clear that the fwk allows for everybody to participate in ethical deliberation.
k - 3 - i read mollow a bit towards the end of my career and have an okay understanding - i read psycho once or twice and it seems p good against k affs cap seems good too... - read a k aff like once - these kinda confuse me since there's no legit fw also floating piks are op and abusive - kvk: just gonna vote for who has more explanatory power and good impact calc ngl however extinction ow is a W strat and given equal debating will win answering the links helps but extinction ow is good enough also answering their thesis helps but idc also pointing out they dont tell me what is moral is good
T - 2- ehh - this is like trying to make theory larpy which makes me uncomfortable in my ability to judge it but i think definition comparison and truly explaining the net benefits to your interp will win this - tfwk and nebel go in theory section
tricks - 1 - entertaining; turning them is strategic some dont even need tt some do rely on pp tho
theory - 1! - by far my favorite thing to hear - critical thinking is most needed in theory debates which is why i think its the best - explain the standards well and explain the abuse story well - paradigm issues warrants dont need to be repeated if theyre conceded but plz tell me that they were conceded and which ones to use so i dont forget lol explain abuse story tho if standard is conceded repeating the standard text word for word is sufficient - no such thing as friv - will evaluate theory abt the persons appearance like shoes but this is like the one thing ur speaks will drop for.
evidence ethics -- sure stake the round for any small violation as long as you can be sure the tournament rules supports you, w30 L29.7
extensions on conceded args -- these can be like repeating the arg again w the same words ngl
overviews are fine ngl but lbl is important too
Default to util
Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds
competing interps > reasonability
rvis > no rvis
dtd > dta
Norming > In-round abuse
Spirit > Text
fairness and edu and norming are voters
fairness > anything else
i am kind w speaks. Guaranteed good way to get good speaks is to explain a math concept above calc 1 to me quickly during any speech bc i like math but i need simple explanations bc im bad at it and just learning basics...
Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn
[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp
To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 4 if you like Ks and LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).
Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).
Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:
1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.
2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.
3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.
4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.
"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell. Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.
Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I
of course won't on face not vote on them , but please reconsider reading them.
Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.
5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.
Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.
6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).
7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.
Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.
8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.
9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.
10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.
11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)
12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.
For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)
*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.
**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.
I am a traditional judge.
V/VC: Ought is the principal term in any resolution within the debate. It comes from this that L-D is uniquely a moral debate in that all arguments absolutely must link back to the presented Value and Value Criterion. These should be well-thought and woven within the structure of your argument for success.
Definitions: The two most important definitions are that of your Value and Value Criterion. Aside from these two terms, please do not get into a lengthy definition debate as it always results in a waste of time for all parties and subtracts from the value of the argument.
Generally: Any dropped arguments will be flowed to the other side accordingly, but if the impacts or the importance of why a dropped argument matters is not explicated then I will simply ignore it entirely. Please use Cross-Ex to the full extent of the time allotted. Roadmap your arguments before rounds start and make sure that you are signposting throughout your debate. Speed is fine but anything crossing the threshold of spreading or is incomprehensible will be ignored.
Speech: Always be courteous and respectful. You are here to convince me not to bash your opponent. Using time appropriately, not going over or under, is something to be expected.
I participated in Debate for three years in High School (2019-2022) with a strong focus on Lincoln-Douglas and competed once in Public Forum. During that time I participated in the Pennsbury Falcon Invitational, VHSL, NCFL, and numerous WACFL tournaments. I am deeply familiar with L-D due to such experience and find it most comfortable to flow and spectate. I am currently at the University of Virginia and owe much of my admission to participating in Debate.
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one.That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else.You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier.The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Open to however you want me to vote, typically lean more towards policy, but i'm more Tab than anything. I value quality over quantity of arguments, I will flow arguments if you verbally signify the importance of them. I'm okay with speed in the constructive arguments but I really prefer if you talk me through your argument instead of reading as much as possible. I like analytical arguments a lot, and will vote based on the effectiveness of evidence provided, as well as your ability to speak with confidence.
I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.
Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:
1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: email@example.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).
2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.
Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truthbut it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.
I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.
I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.
Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).
Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.
Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.
Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.
Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.
Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.
I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.
Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )
If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.
In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).
It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.
I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative. I'll give you +1 speaker points if you use a computer science concept in an analogy.
* Update for Jack Howe (and any tournaments after): please don't read eval after the x speech in front of me. These debates get very confusing since most debaters never articulate what evaluating the debate after x speech looks like.
*Update for Holy Cross: I did an extensive amount of traditional debate in my career, so I would consider myself a pretty good judge for traditional rounds. I am more than happy to listen to a standard v/vc debate. Also, if you are a traditional debater debating against a circuit opponent, please feel free to message me on Facebook or email me with any accommodations that you need. The National Circuit does tend to be elitist towards traditional debaters, so I want to do what I can to mitigate that environment.
Hey y'all! I debated for Mountain House High School for 4 years, one of them on the national circuit. Cleared at a couple of bid tournaments, Qualified to NSDA in Policy, and CHSSA State in LD.
add me to the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: you do you, and I'll evaluate accordingly. I'll vote on any argument with a warrant, given that it is not violent or oppressive (things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) - these arguments will result in an L20 potentially lower speaks. I will be recording rounds for the sake of clipping (with permission of course), and if there is a claim that someone in the round is clipping, I will look back at the recording and make a decision. If you are caught clipping, it's an L20, but if the accusation is false then it's an L20 for the accuser.
I average speaks at around 28.8. Things that will raise your speaks include good collapsing and good strategy (also humor! Debate is supposed to be fun!!). Things that will lower your speaks are overwhelming novices or just being unstrategic.
PF Paradigm's below the general one! If you want to read prog stuff, I have my general preferences in the PF paradigm, but more specific queries should be addressed in my general paradigm.
Phil - 2 (not excessive reliance on trix)
Policy/Theory - 1
K - 2 (never read one but trust me I'm really good at evaluating this)
Trix - 3 or 4
Things I went for: Policy and K affs (Speeced Plans and Agamben/Baudrillard), Phil NC's, Lots of 1AR theory and Topicality, CBW Disads on the JanFeb topic, Set Col (on the standardized testing topic), Truth-testing, A Rawls AC.
Yes RVI's (both sides get this)
Presumption flows neg
Yes 1AR theory
Any arguments will override my defaults.
Thoughts about arguments
I don't want to make this long, so I'll just list things that you should keep in mind while arguing K's and Trix in front of me (Policy args are p simple - just prove why the plan's a good idea, or why the plan is a bad idea).
K's - cool with K affs. I am a better sell for debate bad than you think. Explain your theory of power and what that means for the round. K tricks and Floating PIK's are cool, but theory on that is warranted. I will vote against a K on presumption if there's a warrant. Kick the alt of the K if you want, just tell me how to vote for you in that case. I definitely lean more towards k aff in a kaff v tfw debate, mostly cuz tfw debaters don't articulate their fairness impacts strategically.
Tricks - If you're shady in cross, you won't be happy with your speaks. Defend your aprioris and NIB's and win on them. I think theory against apriori's is fine, but I think TT takes out theory (you have to make that argument). Innovative tricks will earn you high speaks and a smile on my face.
Phil - Explain your syllogism and how it interacts with your opponent's framework/offense. If they don't get offense under your framework, explain why. Don't spam me with preclusion arguments, actually clash with the opposition framework. I'm a good sell for deontological frameworks and induction fails.
Ask me any questions if I haven't covered a topic you need to know. Good luck and let's have a fun round!!
PF Paradigm - NANO NAGLE RR AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS
I've debated a lot of PF on a local level and a couple of nat circ tournaments in my junior year. I would say that I evaluate PF in a similar fashion as LD with 2 major exceptions: No counterplans and a higher threshold on extensions (that being said, I'm open to reasons why counterplans can be in pf and my threshold on extensions is not too much higher -> I just want card extensions as well as a scenario explanation). Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline, but it's much better. Anything I vote on has to be in final focus, and anything in final focus has to be in summary, so make sure everything important's in summary!
I think this is where the most questions will be so.... yes, I am very open to prog stuff. K's, Theory, even tricks and framework is cool in front of me. Just give me warrants and explanations for why that model of debate is good/allowed within the confines of PF. That being said, I'm not endorsing really bad prog debate - just cuz I'm your judge doesn't mean you should whip out that kritik you've never read before. I won't do any analysis for you, so make sure you warrant things well if you read prog stuff.
Debate- This is my third year judging. I am well informed and have done my homework so as to judge fairly and effectively.
-Speak with clarity and at a reasonable pace so that I can take notes.
-I look for effective presentation, organization and strong evidence.
Speech- Not judged too may tournaments but familiarizing myself with the various platforms of speech. I look for effective presentation, body language and facial expressions.
My name is Zi Wang (Zee).
I'm a parent judge. I'd prefer traditional debates over progressive and normally don't vote on tricks, Ks, theory, etc. Please don't go too fast and make your arguments clear. Make sure that you weigh and give clear voters.
James Bowie '23 / TrinityU '27
Contact - email@example.com
My exp is I competed in LD for one year, senior year and qualified to TOC and TFA state primarily reading the K and phill
[ pref shortcut ]
1 - K v K / K v Policy / K v Phill
1 - Policy
2 - Phil
2/3 - Trix
4 - Theory
4 - Friv Theory
not voting on ad homs that's for tab to decide
read the K (unemployment) on both sides, mostly D&G and Mollow. Still, I am familiar with the following lit bases ( D&G, Culp, Saldanha, Foucault, Butler, Baudrillard, Lacan, Wilderson, Wynter, Heidegger, Mollow, Fritsch Edelman. I have done some basic reading on the following ( Moten & Harney, Gillespie, Bataille, Bifo, Derrida, Beller) that being said please explain your K well with contextual interactions, there is no guarantee I will understand your K given how fast LD debate goes.
2NR should probably win some case defense, but it is not necessary
you can kick the alt and go for links as disads, but I need judge instruction
K Lit as Phill /Topical K affs
primarily my style of debate in HS on the aff
Implicate what the aff does if I affirm, non T often loses to good presumption pushes.
Do Impact Calc/Link Weighing
Familiar w Phill on a knowledge level ie, Kant, Emotivism, Prag, Rawls, etc, but haven't watched too many Phill debate rounds
These are funny and ill evaluate them to the best of my ability. That being said, I never hit these kinds of debaters in HS and, as such, may not be that great in understanding the interactions/how these debates play out. However, I'm familiar w most tricks in a vacuum prin of explosion, condo logic, triv, and paradoxes.
I can evaluate them this kind of debate is just very boring to me however and probably what i am least experienced in
I did 4 years of traditional LD in North Dakota and 2 years of APDA at Columbia. Consider me an expert in traditional debate and philosophy and as having a basic working knowledge of circuit debate.
In general, don’t do anything harmful, I will tank your speaks and vote you down. For traditional LD debates, the winner’s offense links to the winning criterion and outweighs their opponent’s offense that links. In circuit debates, I still want some sort of framework/weighing that I can use to evaluate impacts, and I will plug those impacts in accordingly. This can be basically anything, as long as it’s not harmful.
As I become less and less involved with debate, I become less interested in the technical side. I will still evaluate the round based purely on the arguments made, and will try not to intervene in any but the most egregious of cases. Nevertheless, I question the notion that we can or should be a tabula rasa in or out of debate.
In terms of speed, I’m comfortable with anything ~<200, more than that and you should send a doc.
If you are interested in my personal biases, know that I'm generally more sympathetic to ideas that fall under the "identity politics" umbrella. In high school, I ran a lot of Kant so I really like to see deontological arguments done well. I will of course do everything possible to remain impartial in spite of these biases, but they are there.
My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.
Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.
Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x
After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.
Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.
Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.
Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.
Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.
Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.
Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.
Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Astrid (they/them), and I did speech (info and extemp) all 4 years in High School in the Montana circuit, did 2 years of college level NPDA debate, winning Novice Nationals in 2018, and now coach all events at the high school level. I'm excited to judge!
All Events: Avoid gendered language when possible or addressing the crowd. Let me know if you have any time signals you'd like. Have fun, and respect yourself and others. Self advocate for acommodations when possible!
Congress:In a congress debate, I am looking for adaptability and cleverness. A good congressional debater is one who can play the room, find incisive questions that make speakers sweat, and understand the motions that controll the pace of the debate space. Congress is best when it's about the details, both of the arguments and of the procedure. Debaters should be able to expand upon their prepared material AND approach new materials/bills with excitement.
In other debates, there is a skill called telling the "story of the ballot." In congress, that is giving a clear and cohesive summary of the argument about a bill and trying to tell the room why it's best to vote the way you're advocating for. The best congress debaters do that with ease.
I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.
Lincoln-Douglas: I'm pretty good at speed, I've spread-ed my fair share in my day, but I'm a slow writer. For the sake of detail and understanding I may call out "slow" or "clear" when I need it. Please go slower when you're not reading a card so I can keep up.
I'm a big fan of FW debate, impact calculus, and interesting/lesser known philosophy. Watch yourself on colonialism Ks and anything to do with disability/marginalization; I love love love hearing these arguments, but often debaters end up speaking on behalf of marginalized people in unfortunate ways.
In your final speeches, give me clear voters with a story that carries me throughout the flow so I know what the heck is up. Throughout your speech, signpost WHERE we are on the flow.
I weigh theory debates about accessibility and basic respect (misgendering, accessibility around speed, disclosure/wiki etc.) are weighed very heavily for both sides. Evoke them VERY carefully. I care a lot about access to the event. I weigh procedural arguments first unless given a reason not to.
Run stuff you love and what you think is fun.
if you must email a case, email it to email@example.com
All Speech Events: Move around! Explore the space! Don't get happy feet (shift from foot to foot as if anxious), but don't plant yourself in front of your phone. I value a kind of energy that takes up the whole space. I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.
Extemporaneous: I count sources and it contributes to my ranking. I generally like to hear the "out there" questions I know less about, but remember that I might not of heard anything about the topic! Give some preliminary info (which is a great place to stuff in more sources).
Impromptu/SPAR: Explore the space! Have fun! You're in a funny event, make jokes and smile. I love a nice, concise lesson that ties your points together. For Spar, I love having a passion or conviction that is far outside of what is normally considered for such funny topics. I want to feel like you care more about the topic than anything in the world (for both events).
Informative:I will be counting puns and it will contribute to both my ranking and my speaker point allocation. Most puns = 20 speaks no questions asked
I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. If you are going to speak fast, please send me your case.
Please be respectful to your opponents. Have a great debate!
Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I have experience on both the nat and trad circuits. I've dabbled in pf and policy but don't consider myself adept at judging those.
UPDATES FOR TOC: My conflicts are: WDM Valley, Millburn
If there's an email chain, put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.
TLDR - LD
Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!
quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)
2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k
3- pomo k, LARP
for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!
i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.
I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.
I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.
I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.
i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.
Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.
LONG VERSION - LD
- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.
- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.
- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.
- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps
- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.
- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise
- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.
- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.
- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)
- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.
- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI
- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything
- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE
- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle
- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO
- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.
- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.
- see above for my takes on defaults
- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.
- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.
- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best
- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.
- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n
- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.
- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent
- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school
- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil
- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)
- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.
- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.
- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing
- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)
- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss
- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts
- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits
- please weigh strength of link/internal links
- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)
- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes
- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.
- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.
- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact
TLDR - CX
I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)
Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)
- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)
- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both
- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.
- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.
- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity
- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes
Things that can get you higher speaks:
- AUTO 30: doing a question on one of my math/cs psets
- AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
- +1.0: Bringing me a celsius or food, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
- +0.5: Correctly guess my favorite member of twice
- +0.5: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
- +0.3: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
- +0.3: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
- +0.3: Reading unique and strategic tricks/theory that I haven't seen before
- +0.2: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
- +0.2: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Office, One Piece, etc.)
- +0.2: Being funny
- +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
- +0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
- Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task
I haven't judged/thought about debate in a little less than a year and I have no clue what the topic is so keep that in mind
I'm really starting to dislike judging tricks debates (especially poorly executed ones) so I'mma start docking speaks if you overdo the tricks
I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: email@example.com
Basic Phil: 1
Basic K: 2
Weird Phil/Weird K: 4
Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
First time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, doc sharing would be helpful.
Hey, I'm Tommy. I debated for Dulles and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read tricks and theory.
I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.
1 - Theory/T
1/2 - Phil/Tricks
3/4 - Larp/K
Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is.
Phil: I only read Pragmatism and Kant, but I'm familiar with skepticism, hobbes, contracts, Levinas, etc. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. Religious philosophy is really cool.
LARP: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though.
Kritiks: I have an okay understanding of stock kritiks but nothing more than that. I think K tricks are strategic.
Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent, please do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time!
Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)
I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.
For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.
Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.
Hey goofs, I'm Charles
I debated LD at Harrison High School for two years, and I'm attending Brandeis University. I've won a few tournaments in JV and varsity divisions, so feel free to run a slew of argument types (see Shortcut). Above all, this is an educational activity, so be kind, informative, and clear. I want to be on the email chain even if no one else is ... firstname.lastname@example.org
YOU (average circuit debater) DON'T WANT TO PREF ME! I WOULD CONSIDER MYSELF A TRAD FLOW JUDGE. Even though I know stuff, a lot of the "stuff" is not stuff I want to evaluate, or can keep up with. LD circuit debate is kinda stinky at times, so I encourage you to be the different round that I hear. That being said, I have experience in most of the circuit. Just know that while I can keep up with some spreading, I have a quite low threshold for super speed and will clear you. To quote Thomas Berg's paradigm (in the context of tricks, but I'm applying it to spreading), if you lose the round because "I don’t understand the third sub point of your 22nd underview don’t post round me and say i didn’t warn you." Just make sure that what you spread through is on the doc, sign post with all your heart, and it should be peachy keen, Avril Lavigne. I'm ALWAYS ready for CX, I love CX :)
TraK - HIGH SUPREME 1
Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1
Trad - 1
Interesting Phil - 2 (Pragmatism, some deont, burdens NCs, etc.)
LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**
Theory - 4 minus
Whitey Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)
Tricks - nah, strike
Extinction impacts - boring, overplayed
TraK: You've probably stumbled upon this thinking 'What in the heck is even that?" TraK is the mixture of Trad and K debate. I was above all a TraK debater. It's all about reading kritikal arguments with a trad approach. If you pull up in a round and do this effectively you win at life.
Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is epic (please do perform!), but not without its faults. I used to run a non-topical Aff, so I can vote on yours, and will be less lenient towards T against one.
Trad: I prefer trad over most styles of debate. However, I think it can be sucky if it's not creative. So please, feel free to have fun, goof a little, but remain clear. I think my favorite style of debate is a mixture of kritikal arguments in a trad format (or TraK, as the cool kids call it nowadays).
Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff, always wished I ran more interesting phil. I see this stuff as more fun than anything else. A not so fine line between things like burdens NCs and Kant or Baudrillard, so don't confuse these. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.
LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda freaking racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!
Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory...my brain feels sticky, and I get worried I’m evaluating the round incorrectly.
Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is yucky to me.
Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I would hate if this ages well, and you think, "Looking back on my life, I see I was surrounded by foolishness. - 2023" If tricks manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them.
I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my west coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story!
As a brief underview: I love a good silly, goofy, quirky kinda round, so have lots of fun with your cases and your speeches! That being said, be nice, and be kind to all.
I am a traditional debate judge, not a progressive judge. Please speak clearly, and don't spread.
Associate Director of Debate and Speech, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men
Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science, Philosophy)
9th year in debate
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com (Subject Line: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- CODE)
Ask questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Learn more: blake-ziegler.com
First and foremost, I’m a teacher, which means my aim is to maximize the educational experience of competitors in a safe and equitable manner. I believe debate offers vital skills and opportunities for young people, which is why I’m still involved in the activity. Due to this, I see my ballot as an implicit endorsement of the strategy of whichever debater I vote for. This means that if I see your strategy as morally repugnant or you're not taking this activity seriously, it'll be very hard to get my ballot. As the adult (or one of) in the room, I also seek to ensure this space is void of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and the like. I take that responsibility seriously. Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.
1 - Ks, soft left affs
2 - Policy args, non-topical affs
3 - Phil* (see phil section), T/Theory
4 - Trad
5/Strike - Tricks
I competed in LD as a high schooler and have coached students since graduating high school. In both situations, I’ve worked in local and national styles. I believe that the only difference between those styles is the emphasis on persuasion and the way arguments are packaged. With that said, my basic view of this event is as follows:
The affirmative’s burden is to show that the aff a) has someone doing something and b) is a good idea. The negative’s burden is a) to meaningfully engage with the aff and b) show the aff is a bad idea. Whether either side wants to add to their burden is up to them, but that’s how I enter the round.
Both sides should link back to a framework and tell me why I should care about their impacts. LD is unique as a values debate and it’s unfortunate the way it’s been left behind on progressive circuits. I evaluate the debate as to who best demonstrates they link back to the framework of the round.
Extensions, impact weighing, and crystallization are very important to me. Evidence is especially important - it’s the foundation of any argument. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important. Give me voters in the last speech!
Traditional/Whole Res Cases
Go for it. This is my bread and butter.
CPs and DAs
A well-researched CP and DA makes me really happy, especially if the evidence has a strong link chain. Extinction and nuclear war are legitimate concerns in a lot of policy areas, but the link chain has to be very clear for me to buy it. Ilove politics DAs.
Ks and Phil
I read Ks and phil cases in high school and frequently coach students on these arguments. I’ve likely read whatever literature you’re pulling from, but you should assume I’m an uninformed audience. You should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative for the K. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?
Debaters often misinterpret or exclude significant parts of the literature they’re using. Sometimes, this outright contradicts what they’re arguing. Make sure what you’re reading accurately reflects your author or risk losing my ballot. I recommend opponents to make this argument if applicable.
I love philosophy and spent several years working in how we should teach philosophy to students. With that said, I put it as a 3 on my prefs shortcut because I think debaters typically don't approach philosophy well. They don't understand the literature, generally only read backfiles, and can't explain these complex ideas in clear sentences. I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, then I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.
Also, tricks aren’t phil.
Theory and Topicality
I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case. I won't buy frivolous theory and have a low threshold for responses to it (i.e., "gut check - this is frivolous theory").
Topicality is different. It's legitimate to question whether the aff is topical (and whether the aff needs to be topical in the first place), but there are frivolous topicality shells that I view the same way as frivolous theory. I think a lot of these frivolous shells (e.g., "USFG acronyms bad") are better off as plan flaws.
Debating the topic is good. Not debating the topic can also be good. If you're running a non-topical aff, my only expectations are 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting aff solves your impacts. If you do that and win the flow, I have no problem voting for a non-topical aff. My biggest issue with these arguments is debaters can't articulate how the ballot solves the problem.
Don’t run them. They’re bad for debate. It's an auto-loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes.
I have a low threshold for answering tricks - “This is a trick. They’re bad for debate” is enough.
Disclosure is good for debate, especially for small school/lone wolf debaters like I was. I’m very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it’s clear the opponent hasn’t disclosed. My expectation is that you provide an open source doc of your aff on the wiki or email to your opponent. The only exception is students whose school bar you from disclosing or there’s some other reason outside of your control, such as tech issues. In those situations, you should still try to disclose to the best capacity you’re able to.
You don’t need to disclose new arguments. They’re new.
Spreading is fine. I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing.
Tech over truth within reason
Prep time ends when the doc is sent
Be respectful. Debate is an activity for everyone
No flex prep
2NRs shouldn’t go for everything
Evidence has become increasingly poor in debate and I’m sad debaters don’t spend more time on evidence debates
If you’re a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, that’ll lead to a loss and 26 speaks. This is not to say go easy on them, just treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background or just entering the national scene.
How you deliver your arguments and conduct yourself in round matters
Be brief with your off-time roadmaps and don’t say “This is a x minute speech”
If you go significantly over time, I'm docking speaks
Face the judge when you're speaking
30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.
29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery
29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery
28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise
27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills
<27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.
People I admire and have influenced my views on debate
William B Travis, Phillips Andover, Yale
daniel 'dot' zou 'at' yale.edu
My paradigm got deleted, so here's the gist for the Yale Invitational:
- I debated LD in high school on the Texas circuit, qualifying to TFA State and placing 5th in UIL. This was three years ago...I also coach/debate British parli and novice PF recently. All my debate has been with 'small' schools.
- Run what you are comfortable with. Link chains must be clear.
- Debate about something. Clash...please. :)
- If you're gonna spread, send me the doc.
- I will try to understand new-ish arguments but the safest bet is to treat me like a lay judge. They just need to be understandable and elaborated upon.
- I like the framework debate and there must be clash on that front to convince me.
- Please be kind and respectful. :)