Email: anar.s.anand@gmail.com - feel free to add me to the threads

I am a parent judge and an alum of the Stuyvesant High School Speech and Debate Team in NYC. I have a few simple ground rules and requests.

Speech / IE

These are long rounds and I expect you to be alert and engaged throughout the round regardless of your speaker order. This is basic courtesy and you yourself will perform better when your audience is engaged so please extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors. I come with no pre-conceived notions about your topics or performances so your choice of topic or argument is not what I'm judging. My feedback will be based on delivery, presence, soundness of reasoning and how you develop your points/arguments/characters. Most importantly, enjoy yourself up there and have fun with it - if you're not comfortable, we'll know.

LD / PF

Be respectful of one another and of the platform you are given as a debater. If you ask a question in cross, allow the other person to actually respond. If you've already presented something in an argument, restate your point concisely rather than say you've already stated it earlier. These are skills you're building for life.

Debates are won by those who make good arguments, not those who have the loudest voice. Make strong arguments with supporting evidence, present your case with confidence, drill into your opponent's case with challenging questions.

I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe the mark of a good debater is to make strong arguments and get your point across clearly and concisely rather than try to pull a confundus charm on your opponent. While I won't deduct points if you do it, keep in mind I can't judge what I can't understand. It is your job to convince me why your arguments and presentation of them should win you the round.

Keep it simple, make it interesting, have fun with it!

BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, conscience easy to understand arguments, with no spreading whatsoever. I prefer that debaters warrant out their cards and explain voter issues.

anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me on the email chain

My name is Anirv Ayyala and my pronouns are he/him.

I have been coached by Nishad Neelakandan and Rahul Ramesh, feel free to look at their paradigms cause everything I've learned is from them.

Overall stuff

I will judge any kind of debate(excluding racist, homophobic or ableist arguments).

tech>truth

Policy

Policy aff - do whatever you want, I'm tech over truth so good ev paired with better warranting will usually get you the dub

DAs/CPs- I've heard enough of these debates to know what they're saying and also be very bored of these debates. Bonus points if u make these debates fun to judge.

I'll only kick the counterplans if you tell me to. I weigh reasonability on condo very heavily. Any other theory stuff is up to debate.

Don’t take counterplan competition for granted, take clever perms seriously. Politics debates- affs, several plan popular cards from 2015 does not make a link turn - uniqueness is a thing.

Impact calc. Please. Maybe even pretty please. This will win you close debates because it's all about the way you spin-off your arguments.

K debate - I am well versed in K debate, My main area of literature have been afropess/anthropocene Ks. I have read Cap Ks, Liberalism Ks, Antiblackness Ks, SetCol Ks, and anything similar too these will most likely be understood. If it's a high theory argument I know the popular ones(Bauldriard, Batalie, all the other french dudes) but i still need a clear explanation.

Long ranty overviews and generic link walls are generally a waste of everyone's time. K debate reveals its intellectual potential when the debaters are committed to the literature and when a team has a unique angle against the aff. If you're doing this, it'll be pretty clear. But if u make ur long ranty overview fun to listen to and slip a link in there i may or may not flow it as a link.

But please contextualize it to the aff don't pull up with "I hate the state *angry face emoji* " do some work. I will be so happy if you do specific link work to the actual implementation of the aff and will love you if you give me applicable historical examples.

I do think that epistomologies can be weighed as a link, but this does not mean u can just say "topic bad" and expect a link - flesh out why the 1ac's epistomologies forwards a bad model that causes x impact

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s author/-ism as possible. Answering the link will prob get you out of every K you hit and makes it terribly easy to vote aff since an answer to the link is a better warrant for the perm than anything you have in your blocks

Kaffs v FW - Kaffs are great too. Yes, I am willing to vote against you on framework. Everything about debate is how well thought through your argument is. I do believe you can break the game - the only rules you cant break are speech/prep/cx times - but you need to prove why you breaking the game was valuable. Fairness is amazing but i do think clash is the better fw impact. I value narrative cohesion in debates - that's especially true in FW debates. Judge instruction in the 2NR or 2AR will make my life easier and probably win you the debate.

Personal stuff

The ballot is decided by your debating and speaks are decided by me - that being said just don't be rude and you'll be fine

LD

Ive done LD and know how the activity works - so dont worry about dumbing things down. Debate how you do and use all the stuff on policy to see what kind of judge I am

My one preference is to have your 2nr/2ar contextualize what your winning to your fw page, just extending fw at the top and extending the impact later is not weighing your impact

PF

Ive never done the activity but i've judged it and have enough experience in debate in general to know whats going on.

I prioritizes a well-rounded evaluation, taking into account not just technical proficiency but also the speaker's creativity, adaptability, and contribution to the overall debate atmosphere.

Key Components:

1. Effective Communication Skills:

   • Assess the speaker's ability to articulate ideas clearly, persuasively, and adapt to the needs of the audience.
   • Acknowledge the importance of effective non-verbal communication, including body language, gestures, and vocal variety.

2. Critical Thinking and Argumentation:

   • Evaluate the quality of arguments presented, considering the logical coherence, relevance, and depth of analysis.
   • Encourage debaters to demonstrate critical thinking by anticipating counterarguments and addressing them effectively.

3. Engagement with Opponents:

   • Acknowledge the importance of respectful and constructive engagement with opponents.
   • Assess how well the speaker engages with opposing viewpoints, fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating debate environment.

4. Creativity and Originality:

   • Recognize and reward innovative approaches to argumentation and presentation.
   • Encourage speakers to bring fresh perspectives, creative examples, and unique rhetorical devices into their speeches.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

   • Appreciate the ability of speakers to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate.
   • Recognize how well speakers adjust to unexpected challenges or shifting dynamics during the course of the debate.

6. Ethical Conduct and Sportsmanship:

   • Consider the ethical conduct of debaters, emphasizing fair play and adherence to debate rules.
   • Reward speakers who exhibit good sportsmanship, contributing positively to the overall debate culture.

7. Contribution to Debate Atmosphere:

   • Assess the speaker's contribution to creating a dynamic and intellectually stimulating debate atmosphere.
   • Recognize speakers who foster a positive and inclusive environment that encourages thoughtful discourse.

8. Constructive Feedback:

   • Provide detailed and constructive feedback that goes beyond numerical scores.
   • Offer guidance on areas of improvement, helping debaters enhance their skills and knowledge for future competitions.

Conclusion: I promote a nuanced and comprehensive approach to judging speech and debate. By emphasizing not only technical proficiency but also creativity, adaptability, and positive contribution to the debate atmosphere, I seek to cultivate a more enriching and educational experience for participants while promoting the highest standards of excellence in competitive speech and debate.

I am a parent judge. If I am judging your round, here are some things to keep in mind:

• Talk at a reasonable pace. I do not like spreading.
• Clarity is really important for speaker points
• Make sure your contentions are well backed up with evidence to convince me that your side is what I should vote for
• Be respectful to your opponent

Overall, have fun and enjoy the debate

Brett Boelkens

Background

LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)

LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)

Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

I am a debate TA and new judge, I will be judging Tabula Rasa!

My paradigm is a well-rounded big picture: I am not a nit-pick type of judge but an all-inclusive big picture judge. I am not interested in how fast or slow a debater speaks. I want to understand every word and know where I am being led in the thought-process and why. I am partial to layman terms and intelligent discussion as opposed to flowery speech. I am an advocate of debaters who are authentic to themselves and their voices so they are performing at optimum.

My introduction into speech and debate started in grade school with public speaking and parliamentary procedure via participation in 4-H, 1st grade-12th grade. In this capacity we were required to present demonstrations, speeches, and participate in parliamentary procedure. In high school I joined the formal speech and debate teams as well as quiz bowl participation which added to my base of learning.

A University of Kansas (Jayhawks) journalism major, I was trained in the art of listening, critical thinking, asking questions, and forming quick written and verbal response.

I was given the opportunity to work with Nova 42 in Pasadena, California upon the academy's inception. I worked as an assistant coach and extended my teaching to Broadway Academy in Walnut, CA where I taught speech, debate, and critical thinking. I am also a certified substitute teacher in the state of California and have been judging the CA and national debate circuits since it went predominantly online.

I'm highly aware of debate framework, flow charts, Lincoln Douglass, Congress, and the various forms of speech from improv to extemporaneous, dramatic, persuasive, duets, solo, and everything in between.

I am a parent judge but I am well versed in debate and especially Lincoln-Douglas because my son is a current competitor (he's in his sophomore year of high school and a 2x state qualifier in Extemp and a 1x national qualifier in LD) so I know all about the hard you guys put in to make it to these tournaments!

With that out of the way let's move on to what I expect in a round.

DEBATE: I dislike unreasonably fast speakers (aka spreaders) and will reward speaker points to those who enunciate clearly. I cannot keep up aurally to 500 wpm and I thoroughly believe that debate should be about being clear and concise. I WILL NOT JOIN AN EMAIL CHAIN. If you have to card-dump one thousand different arguments to me then you've already lost because you have not disseminated information concisely that is understandable to the average person. I focus on MAIN voter issues for my ultimate decision in a debate round and the better these are stated and elaborated on the more I am likely to vote for you. Values should always be a voter issue in my opinion as well as the magnitude of impacts. I listen to cross-examination but will only count it in the round if elaborated during a later speech. KEEP IT CONVERSATIONAL.

SPEECH: Speak slowly and enunciate clearly. Speech events should never be rushed and should have passion. The better you make a point and a powerful statement the higher I will rank you! The same applies to Congress and SPAR.

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

I am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 6 years, I am in my first year an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School

Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.

Do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture or line by line I'll judge the round on either, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers.

First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot flow what I cannot understand and it is not my job to read off of a doc. You can send me the doc, but I will only refer to it if there is a problem with evidence.

Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude

Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director, you CAN use the internet in rounds now

Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot

Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech. CLASH IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONGRESS TO BE A DEBATE EVENT!!!!!! When y'all take in house recesses it makes you look unprepared. When you get up to give a speech make sure you are actually adding something to the debate rehashing old arguments does nothing for the debate. When you clash with past arguments make sure you mention specific arguments brought up and the speaker who said it.

Extemp: I like to see a well organized and structured speech. You need a good hook to capture the audiences attention. DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I can tell when a source is made up and if I think you are making up a source I will fact check you. I hate being lied to in extemp. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! That is the quickest way to get me to drop you in rank if you don't answer the question, you could have excellent analysis but you must answer the question

Interp: I'm not gonna lie this is probably the event I am least equipped to judge, but I like to see good blocking, clear character transitions and distinctions between characters. In POI make sure you have a variety of pieces in your program. Bring the emotion out in your piece, that does not mean you need to scream to convey emotions

OO:I like to listen to a good oratory. I love the speeches where I learn something and maybe make me feel inspired. Speech should have a catchy agd/hook that transitions naturally into your background information. Make sure you have a solution for your problem. When choosing a topic try to make it unique there are several topics that are commonly used so make your speech unique. I like to see acronyms for your solution. Make sure you have a call to action

Info: Informative is a different event from OO so don't give an OO in info. One of the main differences is that in Info you do not offer a solution you offer societal implications. I love to see infos that actually teach me something I didn't know before I came to judge the round, so be creative I love to see unique info visuals and topics

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS, Avalos P-Tech

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

1. I don't like when people spread; make sure you speak slowly and clearly.
2. Make sure to signpost; when addressing opponent's cases specify which contention/cross-ex question/rebuttal you're referencing.
3. I understand debate can get heated, but remember to stay respectful when addressing each other.
4. I prefer the debaters time themselves and hold each other accountable.

You can spread but you must be clear. If you run a theory position such as a K, T or a vagueness let it be sweet and simple. I’m a flow judge. If I’m not flowing, that’s not a good thing. If you make Islamophobic or xenophobic comments you will be dropped.

I am a new volunteer parent judge, please articulate your speech and points so that I can understand and evaluate. Also, show your logic, confidence, respect and knowledge on the topic you debate. Good luck to everyone!

I am a "classic" Lincoln-Douglas Judge.  This means that I will judge rounds based on:

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.
2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I am a first time judge. Please do not spread.

for disclosure anupama.koneru@gmail.com

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

I don't like spreading so be reasonable with speed. Don't have to go super slow.

Framework is really important. Weigh and Give me clear voters.

I am a parent judge who started judging in 2022. I love debate and speech and hope to help students become better debaters and speakers. One request -- please speak clearly and do not speak super-fast. There is no point in cramming too much information in your speech if your audience cannot understand any of it. Better to argue your points clearly, understandably, and forcefully.

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

LAMDL 2022-23 National Qualifier

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez, Vontrez White

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies basically the usual things you would see in a policy debate.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with

Specifics:

Case:

Case debates are truly a treasure when done right. rehighlights/recutting evidence WILL get you extra speaks.

T:

Really a hit or miss. Reasonability O/W. Wouldn't really go for these types of debates unless it's clear the aff is very untopical. I also just dont enjoy these type of debates. That being said, feel free to run T if that's your strategy.

CP:

Love a good CP. That being said I greatly dislike teams that will read 3 CP in the 1nc with just the plan text or a vague card. I'm all for a good clash debate and really reading CPs in that way just kills a majority of the clash the 2ac can have. I'll be more sympathetic to condo arguments in that case. Plank CPs are fine, explain the progression of the CP and you should be good. Have a good NB or internal NB I think this is where most debates are lost especially when teams just cannot explain what the NB is.

DA:
Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

K:

go for it. I can understand and flow it. I think a lot of K debates become washed from either the alt debate or the fw debate.

K affs: To be honest I find myself voting a lot more on T FW/USFG and I dont think its necessarily because K affs are bad or anything but because I think teams need to really push on the idea that debate changes subjectivities a lot of y'all are letting these policy teams push you around. Theres some good cards out there and I fundamentally do think debate changes subjectivities but it doesnt mean i'll buy it if you do minimal work on it. Also a link to the topic gives you a higher chance at winning in front of me.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, justhave fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

I am a parent judge.

I do not like off time road maps. I believe that you are given a certain amount of time and anything you need to accomplish should be done within that time.

I judge based on technique and responsiveness not on how closely your assigned opinion matches my personal opinion. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Though, if an argument sounds completely absurd to me or the links feel weak, I won't buy it.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I believe that in Speech & Debate, one learns the art and skill of public speaking. If no one can understand what you are saying, you may as well have said nothing. If you think you are talking slow enough, talk slower.

This is a formal event. Please do not be casual. Take every round seriously. Every second of the round influences my vote.

I am of the opinion that the teams should avoid interrupting each other. Listen to your opponents and take notes. Any crosstalk can be achieved effectively in the Cross Examination rounds. (Side note: I really like when teams look at each other during cross. I know it is not standard but I think it makes for better clash)

I believe that if your opponents raise a question, even if the rules say you don't have to respond, you should always respond.

I consider myself open minded. I will always be friendly but am also well aware of when someone is being disingenuously nice to me. I don't give points for behavior outside of the rounds.

Don't refer to me as "judge" within the round - it is my biggest pet peeve.

For email chain: eric.mayron@gmail.com

I am a senior at UCLA. I am a double major in Computer Science and Mathematics. I have limited debate experience, mostly constrained to observation and judging. I also have 6 years of experience as a secondary school and early college tutor, mostly in mathematics and technical writing areas. Furthermore, I have a strong technical and formal writing background in CS, Mathematics, and Philosophy (logic and logic-adjacent fields). I am especially interested in formal logics and their applications.

LD is my favorite event.

Since I'm relatively new to debate, I may not be familiar with all event-specific jargon, or topic literature. I have learned many of these things quickly, but please err on the side of caution or I may not understand a position of yours as well as you would like.

As a judge, my focus is substantive and logical argument over rhetoric. That's not to say that I completely disregard rhetoric in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is an academic endeavor aimed at discovering the truth on some matter. Therefore, I think clear definitions, logical argumentation, and coherence and consistency. Most rhetorical devices should be reserved for aiding a listener in following the development of a well-constructed and logical argument (e.g. analogy, metaphor, etc. where appropriate). In general, I am likely to give preference to well-constructed and logical arguments over ones which rely heavily on rhetoric and non-logical rhetorical devices.

TLDR: I subscribe to the idea that debates should have a basic adherence to first order logic, reasonability, and common sense, and that LD in particular should not be a biased event (favoring either the aff or the neg in an equal-skill round, under a typical debate-interpretation of skill). I completely admit that this paradigm may be considered very interventionist by some less traditional debaters. Recall that debate is intended to be judged by members of the general public, and is not debate for debate's sake. To think otherwise is to deprive the activity of the majority of its purpose.

I try to evaluate LD on the following framework:

Constructions: I flow the verbal constructions, not the documents. I will not look at any documents you send me. Please note this in conjunction with my stance on spreading (below). Constructions are the foundation of the debate. Anything that is a voter was in a construction, or has foundation in it. That does not mean everything in the construction is a voter. But, any position in the construction could be a voter. In particular, presence or foundation in a construction is requisite to being a voter. The immediate consequence of this view is that I do not vote on arguments introduced without foundation in later speeches. This includes evidence that is on a card or a document or other medium, but not in the verbal construction. Furthermore, your opponent does not even need to point out a position introduced later without foundation. I will simply ignore any and all discussion which lacks foundation from the first two speeches in the debate.

Constructions are also the only place where you may establish your framework. Framework positions given in rebuttals, without foundation in a construction, will be ignored.

Cross Examination: I don't flow cross. Cross is for you to prepare your next speech. Q/A in cross does not serve as foundation for a voter in a later speech if it was not brought back up in the speech immediately following your cross. This is particularly relevant for the neg - if your cross vanishes in your 1NR, it vanishes from the debate. Same is true for the aff on the 1AR; however the foundation for arguments in the 2AR should be in the 1AC and the 1NR, regardless of what happens in cross.

Rebuttals: All flowed. You can expect that most (but not necessarily all) voters will be issues extended in a rebuttal speech. This includes not only the 2AR and the 2NR, but also the 1AR. However, I reserve the right to vote on points in a constructive which are not addressed by one side or the other, especially if their magnitude was made out to be large. Furthermore, you can expect it will be rare, but in a close debate (e.g. the rebuttal speeches are complete washes) I may vote on issues which were only in the constructives. You may think of this in the following way: Voters in later speeches will generally have larger magnitude when I decide the round.

Symmetric rebuttals, without further substantiation in the form of evidence or in lieu of logical refutation of your opponent's position, will be considered a wash and not voted on. So you can give a symmetric argument (e.g. aff says housing -> employment and neg says employment -> housing) and I will simply draw the sides on that point, unless one side does more work to say why the other side is wrong.

Furthermore, conditional arguments may become voters if I feel that your attempt at using conditionality is just to avoid a concession. For example, saying "that argument was conditional, so I'm dropping it" in your 2NR, after the aff has rebutted you in the 1AR, is probably not going to fly. Strategic concessions are just that - concessions. It is certain that if such a 'conditional' argument, as described in the example, is addressed in the 2AR that it is going to become a voter (or not a voter, depending on what is being argued) in favor of the aff, regardless of whether an appeal in the 2AR was made to the content of the argument itself or to the theoretical issue of conditionality.

Voters: So far we have that for an issue to be a voter it must have foundation in a constructive (from either side). Additionally, the following may disqualify an issue from being a voter without a squeak from your opponent:

• Circular arguments. The following schema is circular: p -> (a1 -> a2 -> ... -> an) -> p ~ p -> p. Why are circular arguments bad? Because they hinge on the truth of the premise which is being assumed. Which I, as a judge, know nothing about. That is, you have not convinced anyone of any truth - so I cannot vote on it. Non-trivial circular arguments may not be discarded if your opponent does not point them out (e.g. arguments where n is large in the above schema). An example of a trickily-constructed circular argument, that would be discarded without mention from the opponent, is the following: "If shelters worked, why would we be debating the right to housing? Therefore, shelters do not work." Veiling circular arguments with rhetorical devices (such as rhetorical questions) will not work.
• Otherwise logically invalid arguments, which are trivially invalid (see validity here). Trivial meaning the scheme of the argument is sufficiently simple that I could write its truth table in a few seconds. An example of a trivially invalid schema is the following: a1 -> a2. a1. ergo a3. Another example: a1 -> a2. ~a1. ergo ~a2 (this is the converse, an extremely common example I see). However, complicated invalid arguments may be voted on if your opponent does not point out their invalidity. Note that I do not require that your arguments be sound.
• Tautological arguments are not voters (p or ~p, "the car is red or it is not red"), unless your framework explicitly excludes first order logic. Word of warning: if your framework excludes first-order logic, you need to define your logic, or I won't be able to flow any of your points effectively. Generally considered to be dangerous territory.
• Deliberately contradictory positions are not voters. Basic adherence to logic means adhering to p or ~p.
• Evidence violations. Generally as according to the NSDA handbook. However this is something that usually needs to be explicitly brought to my attention, because I don't read any documents.
• Ad homs. Will never be voted on. Ever. No exceptions. e.g. "my opponent is unprepared for this debate".
• Framework. I will never vote on framework alone. Framework is a mechanism to establish the magnitude and probability of an impact (e.g. both debaters agree on utilitarianism as a value criterion so the magnitude of their impacts will be judged on whichever helps the greatest amount of people). I will never vote on something like "utilitarianism is better than pragmatism" directly.
• Not obviously topical, without justification that it indeed is. For example: You are the aff, the resolution is "Should the United States Government guarantee the right to housing", and your "construction" consists of one fact each about 256 different animals. If you do not clearly establish how these animal facts support the resolution, you are going to lose. In this case, the neg doesn't even have to win - you will just lose, because you have no voters under my paradigm.
• I couldn't flow it because you spoke too fast or unclearly. Returns to such an issue in rebuttals will be considered to lack foundation unless your opponent deliberately concedes the foundation. This may be an issue while spreading (above 350 wpm). May be resolved if your opponent understood the point and debates you on it, such that I am able to piece it together. That is, you have the benefit of the doubt here.
• In order to understand your points it would take me more time to consider them than there is in the speech, or you use words that are so incredibly uncommon I do not know them (e.g. "supererogatory") and therefore cannot understand what you are saying. This largely falls under the above - I won't be able to flow it. This additionally applies to word-salad. I probably will write a question mark. I have before. Clarity, please.
• Platitudes are not voters on their own. Justify. Justify. Justify.

How debates will be decided based on the voters:

I decide based on expected values of (the surviving, subject to the above disqualifications) issues and impacts. That is, probability and magnitude (and sign, could be negative impact). Both of these are subject to framework. So, if you win on framework, and your probability and magnitude under your framework are bigger, you are going to do well. If nobody wins on framework, then I will default to epistemic modesty, where probability of an impact becomes the conditional probability given the likelihood of the framework. The likelihood of a framework is something you should argue for. The probabilities I decide can also be a function of the soundness (strength of links) of an argument itself, if they are independent of the framework.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below this point you can find my wishn't list. This list consists things which will largely impact your speaks, but in severe cases will impact voting.

• Extinction. You better have a good case. E.g, probability for the argument "homelessness causes nuclear war" is quite low, so the expected value is going to be near-zero by default.
• Theory debates. Unless they are clearly warranted. Especially applies to opening with theory in your 1AC.
• Plan affs trying to prove generality from a single instance. This scheme is invalid (there exists x, blah, therefore for all x, blah). You are at risk of losing all possible voters in your case
• Too many positions. Hard to flow. Easy to discount. Dilutes magnitude. Substance over quantity, please. Expounding deeply on a few positions is generally better than adopting very many and say very little about each. You have a time limit - use it wisely.
• Spreading (>350 wpm). Often lacks clarity. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other notes

• Status quo arguments, especially ones that argue for solvency, may open your argument to judgement under the common experience (i.e. my opinion) unless mechanisms for how solvency is achieved are clearly laid out.
• I like aff implementation (usually not plan aff). Some of the LD issues seem difficult to argue without at least tacit points about implementation. Plans will also help you solve, and if you solve you are likely to win the round.
• Counterplans good. But they should a) only be introduced if the aff has a plan and b) be competitive with the aff plan. Introducing a cp without the aff espousing a plan is introducing an argument without foundation (i.e. you are negating nothing).
• I am very open to post-round questions from contestants.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Tab, I will go with what you give me. I do not flow CX(questioning) periods.

I have experience in the UIL and NSDA circuit. Just don't give up!

Don't be afraid to ask me questions and any more information about my paradigm. ☺️

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

CSULB OF

HArts OP

1] General:

Thoughts: Debate is game. I vote for the team that did the better debating based on an offense/defense paradigm. Technical concessions outweigh and come first before any evaluation of truth claims. Flow, make good arguments, respect your opponents (with a hint of petty), and have fun. I'm sure I will be known as primarily a "K-Debater" which is proven by the amount of clash- debates I judge. Regardless, do not change your style for me, and do what is most comfortable to you. Start the round on time, add me to the chain as soon as disclosure is sent, and prevent as much downtime as possible before speeches. Asking questions about what was read is prep.

2] Misc:

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Rickelle Basillo, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Jorge Aguilar, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Sofia Gurrola, Jean and Gavie, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Here are teams I love debating against:

Wake RL/RT

Kentucky DG

Wyoming LP

Wayne State RM

My list of favorite white people in debate is coming soon.

I was a policy debater back in the 1990s and am now a law professor. I have not judged for a while. As I'm learning about LD debate, I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Add me to the email chain- katieraphaelson@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I also come from a circuit background so I flow very diligently.

I just graduated from Smith College with a B.A. in Government and French Studies. My gov major concentrated on international relations.

I've been coaching and judging for about 5 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) Please don't read super circuity arguments at States/Nat quals/Nats. I'm good with jargon and such, and I am very comfortable judging circuit rounds, but like be reasonable.

3) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time.

4) Feel free to share your cases but I can keep up without a document.

5) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

6) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

fun fact for this PF topic-

Im a former student athlete! I played d3 softball at smith college (small historically womens college)!

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:Hello, my name is Nahomy, my pronouns are she/her. I have debated in all 3 divisions in lamdl and I have debated in varsity 2020-2022. So debate how you want, but keep it within the topic and in connection with the topic. Most importantly... Have fun. Keep the nice vibes.Im a pretty chill Jude im cool with mostly everything. PLEASE KEEP your time I don't really like playing time keeper. PLEASE DO NOT ask me anything pertaining to debate while in the round ex: what you should run or what can be ran. Ask me these type of things before.

My Email: nahomy.rivas09@gmail.com please keep me in the email chain

If you say anything racist, homophobic, misogynistic, ableist, transphobic or xenophobic, I will vote for the other team and give you low speaker points. Please be nice to everyone in the room; this is a safe space for everyone.

I will also dock speaker points if you are disrespectful to the other team.

Time: I will keep time. Please also keep your time its really good to keep track of your time.

CX: open cross x

Here I go into detail on off cases, case, and how I vote but don't stress your self out don't overcomplicate debate just give me a nice constructive and speech on why I should vote for your side and not the other side use your evidence to back your points up. Be respectful keep it friendly with me and your opponents and were good.

Framework:

Big on framework if you run framework I expect to see a framework from both sides example if frame is ran on the aff side I expect a counter-frame from the neg ect. Also, I like to flow framework separately so make your frame explicitly clear!

Case:

Inherency: Tell me whats going on currently in the status quo and any issues going on

Advantages: explain the positive consequences that happen via your aff plan

Plan: Break down your plan in depth to give me all the good details about it

Solvency tell me how the AFF solves the issue via your plan this is very important

K:So if you choose to run K explain your ALT clearly please explain your link too. Explain why voting AFF is bad but also what voting for this K will look like and why its ultimately better than the AFF.

T: Voting issues ground and fairness I considered all of these when voting for the T.

CP: Why should I vote for the cp and how is it better than the aff plan you should tell me why I should vote for the cp than the plan

DA:How is the aff bad tell me all the harms and the how its linked to the affs plan explain your links and internal links impacts all the good stuff.Paint me a nice picture of all the bad things that happen when voting aff.Do an impact cal.

For the aff please answer the negs off cases do not leave something unanswered because then I have dropped arguments and that can led me to vote neg.This is For both sides dont drop your own arguments or your answers to your opponents arguments.

Ask me anything you want me to clear up before or after the round.

My basis are left at the door I will evaluate all the arguments how they were answered and handled during the round. Dont expect me to vote on something emotional if it dosent have anything to do with the topic at hand. and if you kick out of something I will stop considering it and say anything I should prioritize while making my decision.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

As a new parent judge, I request clear articulation from you which will help me evaluate better. I will look for good reasoning, logic and evidence. Good luck!

I am a parent judge.

You do not need to change your style of speaking, but would appreciate you to avoid spreading.

Please avoid using too much technical/ theory stuff, as it will be lost on me. If you do, explain it in short.

I do not take notes, so please do mention if your opponent drops an argument.

I award points based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself during the entire debate.

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any  argument (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well. 

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

I’m a volunteer parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand the points you're making. Be succinct with your reasons and keep track of your own time. Maintain a respectful environment.