Hello, most of my debate career was spent as a critical debater but I can follow and don’t mind traditional policy debate. My judging preferences are really simple just do what you do best and if you win on the flow you win the debate. Spreading is ok be sure to slow down on taglines and the arguments you really want me to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t feel pressured to debate a certain way just be yourself and be respectful.

Lexington ‘24

Please put me on the chain: lexusdebate@gmail.com and please have a subject line with the tournament name and round number!

I use she/her pronouns

About Me:

I’m currently a senior at Lexington High School and I’m a 2a

For online debate: I’d really prefer if you kept your camera on while debating if possible :)

I look forward to judging you!

General Debate Stuff:

Please be nice to everyone, debate should be fun

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team

Please signpost (verbally letting me know if you’re switching between flows), it really helps with organization

Tech>Truth, except for discriminatory arguments

Clarity>Speed, go as fast as you want but I won't be afraid to clear you

Please tell me how to frame my ballot

No new args in the block or rebuttal speeches, I won't evaluate them as I think it's too late in the round

I think case debate is honestly underrated, I enjoy a good case debate

Please don’t steal prep!!

K:

I’m not very familiar with K literature

I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff. Otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier

K affs and FW:

I'm not great with K affs, again, I’m not very familiar with k literature. I probably won't understand your aff that well but I will still vote for it if you make a good argument as to why I should

Please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key

I’m gonna need something to vote on

More often than not kaffs will have a small blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, develop your arguments fully, please and thank you

I am definitely more neg leaning on T-usfg and presumption args

T:

Do good internal link debating i.e. explaining how precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs, and why the other team’s interp is not precise/educational/predictable/etc.

CPs and Theory:

I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory

Condo is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.

I’m fine with agent and process cps

DAs:

Do impact calc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain the story of the da, especially in the 2nr- make sure that you are doing good link and internal link debates

For LD and PF:

Please please please time your speeches

Read evidence clearly, I think presentation matters as well

Also if there are any speech docs, please send them!

I don't have much experience with PF or LD, but I have been a policy debater for three years at Lexington High School. I'll definitely be looking at the flow throughout the debate so please keep your speeches organized

Speaks:

28.6-29- Amazing :)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.1 If you show me your flows after round

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (lexusdebate@gmail.com)!

As a judge for this debate competition, my primary focus lies on clarity and organization in communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments in a clear, logical manner with smooth transitions between points. I prioritize the strength and validity of the content, looking for well-supported arguments through evidence, examples, and logical reasoning. Notably, I am not a fan of spreading – rapid and unclear speech – as it impedes clarity and hinders the overall quality of the debate.

Hello all! I am excited to judge you!!

my email: victoriadrengel@gmail.com

Things you should know:

1. evidence: use and reference evidence! this means extending the warrants and referencing cards by name
2. spreading: if you choose to spread please be clear; I flow by hand so please give me time to adjust.
3. ballots: give me as much judge instruction as possible ie. write out my ballot, however you choose to do so.
4. tech/truth: I am more tech over truth unless blatantly obvious, especially if other parts of the flow interact with that specific portion of the debate
5. signpost: lmk the number of pages I will need, the order, the names of pages, and lmk if you are doing an extra long overview
6. cross-examination: I am fine with open cross-examination but make sure both partners speak equally and in a balanced manner; also please be respectful as debate is first and foremost an educational activity and should be a safe space.
7. I'm fine with any arguments with obvious exceptions ie. don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Nonetheless, I am the most familiar with kritiques: cap, security, antiblackness, and sett col
8. >5 off: you will probably lose me in these debates, but again SIGNPOST

Clarke Dickens

Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:

I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):

Pre-Round

1. Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).

2. Policy v Kritik: No preference

3. Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.

4. I usually do not vote on T.

5. Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.

6. Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.

7. Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

• Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Don't / Pet Peeves

1. Being disrespectful (includes being rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.)

2. Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.

3. Overviews: Keep them short.

Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Kritiks: I love K debates that include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.

Hey, I'm Wheezy.

She/Her - 2N (I 2A'd for a little this year)

One-half of Baltimore City ES.

Email Chain: wheezyedebate@gmail.com

If you feel uncomfortable in a round just let me know. Debate should be fun not an uncomfortable space. <3

You should write my RFD for me in your 2nrs and 2ars.

For Novices:

• Read whatever you are comfortable with
• You should be giving good explanations in cross-examination and rebuttal speeches.
• If I say clear it means I cannot hear/understand you.
• You cannot end a speech with >1 Minute left.
• If you use all of your speech time then will boost your speaks.
• If you show me your flows and you flowed all of your opponents' speeches well i'll upgrade your speaks.

For everyone else

Depth > Breath & Truth = Tech

Good with spreading but be clear and slow down on tags and analytics, I will say clear.

TLDR: Best for KVK or Policy v. K, OK for K v. Policy and Theory. I really enjoy watching policy v policy rounds but haven't debated many. Bad for aff v. 6+ off.

Non-black debaters should not run Afropessimism.

General Info:

Yes Email chain: cguytingco@ms50communityschool.org.

Please send all email chains at the beginning of the debate.

Pronouns: SHE/THEY

Proud Filipino American from Michigan

Youth Leadership Coordinator at El Puente de Williamsburg

Artist, Activist, Educator

I am passionate about social justice topics; specifically environmental justice, racial justice, women’s issues, education, and youth development.

BA International Studies, Concentration in Political and Economic Development, Minor in Business, University of Michigan '21

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency. Please keep track of your own time. I do not prefer spreading. Open Cross Examination. I will not disclose during the debate.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language, even it is a "joke." If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5.

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know what is going on. Please over-explain everything. I am a novice debate coach and judge and I have very little experience with debate.

A high school social studies teacher for 20 years, I am a relatively new debate coach. I have a little experience judging Lincoln-Douglas and policy debates.

Roadmapping is helpful in making it clear what your arguments are. You should back your claims with warrants and cards from credible sources. I think it is most important that the teams respond to their opponent’s arguments. It is also important that you state your impacts clearly and that you effectively argue why your impacts matter more than your opponents’ do.

Please do not spread. I will not appreciate theory or Kritiks and would prefer that you keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Hi Im Noah I did policy debate for 4 years at Calvert Hall

email: noahiydebate@gmail.com

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
• Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

email: cbm2158@columbia.edu

I am a judge and coach for Brooklyn Technical High School. I mostly coach public forum now, but I have more experience with policy. I competed on the national policy circuit in high school ten years ago. I am currently a PhD student in English and Comparative Literature.

I do my best to maintain a detailed flow and place a premium on clear and consistent signposting.

I like Ks and theory, but I think they are difficult to run well in public forum.

I don't typically ask for evidence after the round unless there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says. Flag it in your speech, and I'll be happy to look.

Feel free to raise any other questions or concerns before the round!

Email(Add me to the chain): tatodawae@gmail.com

Name and Pronouns: Edmond Meng, He/him

tech >> Truth and Open Cross is OK

You can call me Edmond instead of Judge.

If you are a novice reading this, please remember that novice year is all about learning (ESPECIALLY LEARNING HOW TO FLOW AND DO LINE BY LINE). It should be fun, and educational. If I vote you down please don't feel bad, it is not a negation against your abilities.

Reading >6 offs, K-affs, against novices during early season is not the best practice. I will not vote you down for it or deduct you speaks, but I suggest you to move onto the next level.

I like any arguments.

READ THIS: Don't bring new Off case positions in the neg block - put them in the 1NC - I am not going not weigh them. DO NOT expect me to do the work for you. Tell me what to think, and how see the debate. OR ELSE I will have to intervene.

Dos and Dont's

DOs

1. Signpost
2. flow
3. Be passionate in Cross, BUT NOT RUDE
4. Line by Line
5. Clarity over speed
6. Overviews
7. Impact Calc
8. Clash
9. Have context I.E. tell me why a certain card you read is advantageous to your specific argument
10. Don't drop case
11. Think of debate as a picture, and you as the painter. tell me why such and such details matter to YOUR ARGUMENTS.
12. Be Confident
13. Be persuasive
14. send speech docs
15. keep track of speech times
16. Do your last speech to a track or music ;)
18. Make arguments on the fly, I love hearing analytics based on empirical examples - IE cards aren't everything. I am not going to read cards for my decision UNLESS you instruct me to do so.

DON'Ts

1. Don't Be a bad person, which includes being homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc.
2. Don't clip cards
3. Don't steal prep(Being unprepared is part of debate. Nobody is truly prepared for everything. Its better to learn time management early)
4. Don't be rude

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY TLDR: Card dumping will not cut it. I'd rather you debate with smaller amount of arguments but with excellent contexts and clash.

Hello! My name is Rafia. I am a 1st year coach. I have judged 4 tournaments locally thus far. I would like clarity, appropriate speech speed (e.g. no spreading), and respect for all from my debaters. I look forward to working with everyone.

add me to the chain: alyssa.santiago@lmghs.org

i like k's :) run anything you're good at though! i'm cool with policy-based debate too if cp's and da's are your thing.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge. (If you lose I won't doc speaks)

hi! this paradigm is built to be very novice-friendly to read. if anything here is unclear or not specific enough don't be afraid to shoot me an email!

add me to the email chain --- nevaeh.sencion2024@baltimorecitycollege.us

Nevaeh (nah-vy-yah) or Rita (or you can call me judge. It is truly & honestly the least of my concerns in a round what you refer to me as)

she/her/they/them

one half of BCC ES

2a/1n (this year) (I've been every speaker position throughout my 4 years)

City College 24'

RKS 23'

Debate Boutique 21' & 22'

Some Stuff About Me:

I'm in my 4th year of high school debate. I currently debate at Baltimore City College, city forever ;), and did 1 year of debate in middle school with the Baltimore Urban Debate League. My favorite topic I've ever debated on was CJR. My lit base now is more K-leaning but I do still read policy stuff on this topic on the neg.

Debate stuff:

it is easier for me to evaluate arguments when you use framing devices such as impact calc & role of the judge/role of the ballot to filter your offense. I usually start at the level of what should I care about in this debate and why does it matter when I'm making decisions. Both of those things are your job to tell me.

I believe that debate is a performance. I care very deeply about how you actually speak in debates. that being said, I have no problem with speed. be as fast as you want, but if I cannot hear you or your speech becomes very unclear I will clear you. I don't like clearing people, but I would rather hear what you're saying than try to guess, for your benefit more than mine.

Argumentations/performances/behaviors/antics that exert antiblackness, misogyny, sexism, homophobia, misgendering, transphobia, sinophobia, Islamaphobia, or anything of the sort are not at all tolerated. Auto L.

If you need something, say something. Don't sacrifice your health or well-being for a round. You will be okay.

If you have a name that is not the one on Tabroom that you would like me to use for you, or pronouns you would like me to use for you please let me know.

Aff Specific---

I find it extremely hard to vote on internal link chains I do not understand. if I cannot comprehensively explain back to you how we get from point "a" to point "b" in terms of impacts to the aff then it is extremely hard for you to win impact calc. I am also, once again not a policy-leaning debater, so throwing out random acronyms and terms does nothing for me without an explanation of what those things mean/why they matter.

K AFFs - As of 02/02/2024 I have never judged a K AFF for this topic. As a K debater, I don't care if you link to the topic or not, genuinely. Just give me a warranted, fleshed-out reason as to why you don't have to. I also believe that in this respect, everything in debate is a performance, the way to generate more offense off of your aff is by using things that happen in the debate to your advantage. I, as a K debater still have a hard time doing this in rounds, and generating ethos off of what is happening and how it relates to the theory of power you are going for about the world/topic/debate space makes it more persuasive.

Neg Specific---

I do not care about how many off you run. Actually, that's a lie. It's hard for me to follow debates that have more than like 5 off. This doesn't mean I can't, it just means the threshold for warrants for all your arguments/what the 2NR should go for becomes higher. I think it is probably more valuable to use your time to flesh out the arguments you know you actually care about & are comfortable explaining rather than to try to shotgun. 2nr decisions are hard, being a 2n is hard (speaking from the perspective of an ex-2n), but go for the offense you know makes the most sense/you have the most impacts that outweigh the aff's/the aff conceded the most of/you could deliver the most confident speech on.

I went for K's on the neg a lot the 2 years I've been a 2n. Mainly Racial Capitalism & Black Feminism.

TLDR:

All that being said, you should debate how you want to debate. Debate what you want to debate about. Do anything you want. Be yourself, have fun, and remember that you are what makes this activity, this activity does not make or define you.

excited to judge you :)

Email chain: jude.sweeney2003@gmail.com

he/him

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21

If I am judging you, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any specific style of debate. Please go slow, warrant your arguments, and refrain from using jargon.