I am a current member of the Duquesne Debate team and have a focus in parliamentary debate. I will decide on a winner by which team is best at arguing their case on the resolution. I judge based on what is told to me, not what I know. I will be flowing all of the arguments, and will make my decisions based on who brings forward the most compelling argument.

Email Chain please!! saverabaloch85@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school

Run the arguments that you are most comfortable with.

tech>truth

Give me an off-time road map before you begin speaking so that I know the order to flow.

PLEASE slow down when you are reading tags for new cards, this makes it easier for me to flow.

If you are disrespectful throughout the round I will weigh that into my decision

Policy/PF/LD- I have not researched the topics so please make an effort to define terms that may be unfamiliar.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Yes, put me on the email chain: rajgodse@gmail.com.

Short version: Don’t adapt too much to me. Do what you do best and I’ll adjudicate it. Full speed is fine as long as every syllable is clear. Frame and weigh your offense and write my ballot.

For PF/LD: I am a flow judge who will evaluate theory. Speed and “non-traditional” arguments are welcome but certainly not expected.

For Policy: I was a 2N/1A who started as a K debater and moved towards policy arguments in my last two years. I debated from 2016-2020. I don't debate anymore, and study Computer Science and Math.

I am pretty agnostic about most issues and can be persuaded of most things. That being said, here is a shortlist of my biggest predispositions:

1) I lean Neg on most (CP) theory issues. This includes me strongly believing infinite conditionality is good. In general, non-T theory is rarely a reason to reject the team.

2) For T (vs. a plan), I default to competing interps and evaluate T like a DA.

3) I'm probably familiar with your K lit. But it's still 100% your burden to explain it in the context of the round like I didn't. The relevant part is that you can assume I'm familiar with the project of critical theory.

4) I've been on both sides of framework debates. Framework is not genocide, rape, etc. Your K Aff is offense against framework most of the time. Competitive activities should probably have procedurally fair adjudication.

5) Default to yes perms in a method debate, but K v K often leads to complex interactions that I'm fine throwing that out the window for.

Tldr: I competed in policy debate and public forum debate for all four years of high school. Go for whatever you want as long as it’s not offensive and it’s explained well. Make sure you’re respectful to everybody and have fun!

Pittsburgh Central Catholic ‘23

Pitt ’27 (not debating)

hudsonnoah0482@gmail.com (please include me on any email chain)

PF: Good impact calc/weighing will help you win the round. Especially love pre-req arguments. This goes beyond just having a large number and repeating it. Make sure you have a clear link story that’s explained well and you should be fine. Everything needs to extended properly for you to go for it in final focus. A good comparison of arguments will be valued highly. This means not just repeating your argument and your opponents’ arguments, but explaining why your argument is better and why it matters. I don’t flow cross-ex but I’ll definitely pay attention. Off time roadmaps are fine, just make sure your speeches are organized. As the debate comes to an end you should limit the amount of arguments you go for. You should not be going for 5 arguments on each contention in FF.

Policy: It’s been a while since I’ve done policy, so make sure you explain everything clearly. Tech>truth. If something is conceded you still have to explain it and why it matters. Make sure you extend all arguments you plan on going for later. To be honest, I’m not too great with Ks. I’ll still definitely vote on it, you just need to make sure you’re clearly explaining everything, that includes any jargon. Make sure you have strong and preferably specific links to everything. Good impact calc will help you win a da. Probably won’t vote off of T unless if the plan is super abusive. Still feel free to run it.

I am a current member of Duquesne's Debate Team and focus on parliamentary debate. I'm a blank slate when it comes to preferences and will be choosing the winner based on who is able to make the most clear argument backed by evidence.

I am a member of Duquesne University's debate team. I mainly do Parliamentary debate, but I also participate in speech events. I often like to flow during rounds, and I am a blank slate regarding preferences. I chose the winner based on the logic and evidence provided in the round. I just ask that competitors be respectful to one another, especially during crosses.

I am the President of the Duquesne debate team and am primarily a Parli debater, but compete in some speech events and LD when possible. For debate, essentially just be persuasive. Use logic and reasoning to back up any statistics and don’t be rude to each other during cross.