David Adelowo

he/him

I am a junior in high school. I debated policy debate for two years, but also have experience in Lincoln-Douglas, so I am familiar with how debate operates and debate lingo.

Add me on the email chain: daviddebatesphs@gmail.com

I'm ok with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll deck your speaks.

Be courteous in debates. Attack the argument, not the people.

I will flow every argument, including tricky and confusing ones, but if not explained thoroughly, I will not vote on it.

Make sure you are extending your arguments.

If you plan on running a K, make sure the story is clear. I'm okay with complex kritiks if you have a clear story and link.

Big fan of organized debates. Make sure your doc looks decently organized and that you are signposting, especially if you're spreading.

Thanks for taking the time to read this paradigm, as well as all of the other paradigms you're probably reading right now too, so let us begin, shall we?

I am a graduate of East Side High School (class of 2012) and I have been debating for four years while I was at East Side High School. I did policy debate for three years and then I did Lincoln-Douglass debate in my last year of high school because I had a lot of partner issues. I have graduated from Essex County College with my Associate's Degree in Liberal Arts (2020) and I will be attending Kean University to pursue my Bachelor's Degree in History (also in tandem with a K-12 certification) in the Spring 2023 semester; which begins in mid-January.

For Novice Debaters

-Please keep your speeches concise and organized as you make your arguments throughout the round.

-Always make sure to flow during EVERY speech and I would also suggest that you prepare your cross-ex questions in advance, prior to the cross-examination proper.

-Please be mindful of any details you may come across during the round so even if you have to ask a question while you're using your prep time (AKA "flex prep"), ask ONLY for clarification and nothing more. 

Akin to playing fighting games, sticking to the fundamentals will never steer you wrong, so as long as you know how to execute, when to execute, where to execute, and follow through. 

-give me a road map (the order of the speech) and make sure to signpost during the speech as well

-I'm ok with speed reading so as long as you are clear and concise with your arguments and how you present them to me. If you can't, then that's also fine, because debate as an activity, is all about being an effective communicator, regardless of your pace. Also, if you have time at the end of your speech, try to include a summary of the arguments you presented (AKA an under-view) so I as the judge can have a clear picture of how your arguments will not only interact with your opponent's arguments but also how your arguments can dismantle the logical appeal of said arguments and WHY I, the judge should vote for you.

As for the rest of this paradigm, here are my other preferences (for JV/Varsity Debaters)

-I ABHOR THEORY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED in bad faith! To clarify, when a theory argument is used to not check potential or in-round abuse, and instead is used to garner offense without context specific to the debate, it indicates to me as a judge that you're trying to circumvent the discussion instead of actually engaging the arguments being presented in the round. As a debater, you need to pay attention to how it is being deployed in the round and discern if the argument is being used in good faith or not. If not, then respond to it with direct clash and warrants to back it up.

-Topicality is another argument that I don't like but I don't totally dislike as well. Like theory, the situation has to present itself in a way that will be smart for you to run the argument. So as long as you don't drop it and try to bring it back in the later speeches for a cheap win, I will evaluate it. I do evaluate the K of topicality as well so as long as you can explain how the K of Topicality addresses topicality as a concept and why it is bad for the round. However, you still need to answer the shell thoroughly with a counter-interpretation, definition, or even if you can't, concede to their framework and use it as means to dismantle the credibility of the argument itself Arguments that you run analytically will have to have some sort of warrant or empirical evidence in order for me to truly evaluate it.

-I'm totally fine with the staple arguments (i.e. CP's and DA's). And for CP's specifically, if you're running a PIC, I'd really appreciate an overview of the pic for the sake of clarity and why the PIC is uniquely beneficial for the neg, and why a permutation would make them extra topical.

Side Note: if you plan on kicking out of any of these types of arguments, make sure to "close the door" on them appropriately so the aff doesn't gain access to any offense on those flows. By "closing the door" I refer to making the argument that explains why the idea was conditional and explaining how and why the aff ought to not gain any access to the offense they've made on those arguments by pointing out how in the neg and aff world the aff arguments wouldn't function as solvency but rather as a solvency deficit to the 1AC on those particular flows.

-Kritiks to be honest, are one of my favorite off-case arguments so as long as you know how to run it correctly. When it comes to certain kritiks that I've never heard, or really don't get, I'd appreciate it if you can give a quick explanation of how the kritik functions in the neg world if you have any time left over in your speech. When it comes to critical affs, explain how racism or other "isms" functions through a specific or myriad of social institutions functions to oppress "x" marginalized group(s) of people the 1NC claim to solve for in the kritik.

-If the aff doesn't address the K thoroughly with a permutation argument or impact turns the K, make it your priority to extend it throughout the debate. Don't let them get away with defensive/non-answer-Esque arguments that don't address the core issues the K intends to solve. However, if they do go for a permutation argument and they don't explain how and why the permutation is uniquely better than the alternative, explain why their permutation argument can't and shouldn't work, and why it is a reason I should prefer the alternative.

-when it comes to frame-work, I evaluate it in the round as the clearly established bright line that both teams ought to adhere to, purely on a mechanical level. If one team establishes the framework as the guiding point of the discussion but fails to use it as a weighing mechanism to give me an idea of how the round is supposed to play out then there's really nothing else for me to see on a macro level.

-Essentially, if it doesn't meet the bright line, they'll functionally concede to it without an explanation as to how and why they'll meet that bright line better than you. However, if the bright line is upheld and extended throughout the round as the prerequisite/starting point to whatever discussion needs to be had then I will evaluate it as the argument. By the way, I also prefer framework arguments that promote an idea that is able to be utilized in the most holistic way possible. I'm also fine with Policy Option framework arguments as well, as long as they're explained in a way that promotes practicality in terms of putting forward a systemic solution along with using it as a starting point for a discussion.

-during Cross Examination, do not stick to just one question and expect to get a different answer. If they don't answer the first time around go to the next one, and the next one and get them to concede to your side of the debate because that is what cross-ex is for and that is how it should be utilized. And please, DO NOT GO ON A RANT when you're the one asking questions. Just keep the questions concise and rapid, three minutes can go by like nothing so please use those three minutes wisely. Additionally, BODY LANGUAGE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND DURING CROSS-EX. I say this because as a judge, it shows me that you are confident and persistent in the questions that you are asking/answering.

-DO NOT SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE AND TRY TO JUSTIFY IT, and by offensive I mean anything that is racist, sexist, or just completely taboo. I will dock your speaker points!

aside from that, just have a good time and if you lose, that should be the least of your worries. this is literally just a learning experience that commodifies arguments to get your point across. I'm sure you have a much better life outside of this extracurricular activity...but if it is something you choose to devote yourself to on a daily basis then by all means pursue your goals and strive to be the best that you can possibly be within the activity. Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your goals, not even me!

Email: niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

About me:

My name is Zaniah. I did policy debate for four years and recently earned my B.A. in Political Science from The College of New Jersey. I am currently a Master of Public Policy (MPP) student.

I am new to judging Speech but have observed rounds before and familiarized myself with the landscape through NSDA

Policy Debate

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it in basic terms. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable/familiar with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate. Keep the flow clean! Let me know when you are moving from one flow to the next. ( K, DA, CP, Case)

In your rebuttals, give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you? Do not say "we are winning every flow," instead tell me what offense you specifically have on that flow that I should evaluate.

• I’m completely fine with voting on presumption. Just make a clear statement about what specifically your opponent is missing that requires me to vote that way

• You can make analytical arguments, especially if you feel there is an obvious argument to be made in the debate. I’m fine with you drawing on personal experiences or current policy issues but these should not serve as your primary evidence
• If your opponent drops an argument let me know why it is important that I evaluate the argument they dropped. “They dropped it” is not an extension.

Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will let you know. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

• “Slow” means you’re going to fast
• “Clear” means you need to annunciate clearer

Speaker Points

• Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line-by-line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
• Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
• Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX. I am fine with open cross but please do not dominate your partner's cross examination.
• Be strategic about what you decide to go for in the 2nd rebuttal speech

TLDR; Novices: be nice, patient, try your best to clash, signpost/roadmap, make a good email chain AND PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS PRE ROUND IF YOU ARE CONFUSED!!

sbarry50@stuy.edu

Goodluck TY!

I’m a Senior at Stuyvesant (Stuy BF 1A/2N) (shoutout ATIYA!!) and previously debated at Success Academy for 3~ years. I pride myself by my experience, and I’m ready to give y’all the best advice.

Sali/Salioudian (sa-loo-jin) she/her (calling me judge is also fine!)

EDITED 4 LAKELAND Novices:

Trust me, I’ve been there, the pressure is real. Just be patient with your partner and opponents. It’s difficult to be Aff a lot of the time especially if you are very new to debate / don’t understand the nuance of the resolution well. Do your research but I won’t fault you for making a mistake (in terms of your speaks). If you concede an argument as Aff I already described earlier later responses are not my fave, I want the 2AC to have an answer to everything, even if it is a short analytic. So if the Neg capitalizes on your conceding it’s kind of over for you gang. Just try your best and be nice. Stay with the novice packet (unless tournie rules says its ok not to) and don’t be one of those teams that run all 7 offs for time skew, I will vote on condo in that case.ALSO PLEASE SIGNPOST & GIVE AN OVERVIEW.

Policy (CP/DAs/On Case)

I don’t loveeee basic policy stuff especially if you are a jv (or higher) debater, but I will note if you understand the nuances of whatever you are saying. This means that even if you are running a States CP and Fed DA, if you make sure clash is imminent and convince me through offense your argument is better, I will vote your way (with established framing or impact calc ofc). Same thing goes for Aff. You have a bigger burden cause you have to basically respond to all the hurdles they are throwing at you (off case) while making sure your case does not fall apart. Also I generally don’t like PICs but I will vote on your articulation.

General (Top Level)

I am a Kritik debater and adore K affs, K v K, T v K, or even K v Policy. I like to evaluate rounds based on a framework of education or more complex stuff like pedagogy or even basic ethics / morality stuff. Debate should be a space where everyone leaves the round educated, and I know there’s a bunch of stereotypes regarding Policy since it’s fast-paced, people tend to assume we don’t learn anything but how to argue better. I disagree with this mindset, everybody gotta leave the round with at least some knowledge at the end of the day.

I think debate is becoming a better space, but I have had experiences that are hostile and made me want to stop debating as a black debater, which is why I want to make y’all as comfortable as possible. I will not vote against any argument because it’s “too liberal” or “too theoretical” as long as you are CLEAR and passionate about your topic/articulation i’m ready to give the argument my undivided attention.

For basic policy impacts like extinction and all that other stuff I’ll vote based on your articulation of impact calc and who generally does it the best in round. I’d say I am truth leaning (Tech———x——Truth) but I can flip if your point is consistently extended and brought up— or if the other side drops it completely / does not clash.

I judge each round with a blind eye, I don’t favor any sort of argument and will vote with any team as long as they establish good clash, are more convincing, or tell me how I should vote. As long as nothing offensive happens in round (if it does and the opponents capitalize on it you will get an automatic 30 speaks) then we cool. This is probably a good time to mention if you are extremely conservative / patriotic (and let that show in round) or run anything like Racism good, Maga K, etc I’m probably not the judge for you gang. Just see yourself out because if I hear those types of arguments I will stop the round and give you 0 speaks.

Spreading is good, but clarity is important. I’ll make sure to yell clear if I do not understand you, or just simply can’t follow along. I judge based on what comes out of your MOUTH not what’s in the doc. Send a marked version for your opponents, but also me. It helps me keep my flows organized. If you don’t get to solvency it’s thrown out! I don’t believe in establishing new evidence in rebuttals or anything of that nature. I’ll still flow it but I will side with the neg if aff puts responses in the rebuttal and neg points it out. Just be prepared, and be fair.

Theory

I like theory arguments a lot, I think it is important to look at other stuff in round such as fairness, conditionality, and fiat. But this is kind of where my truth > tech comes in. I draw the line at ridiculous A-Z spec arguments and anything that just sounds weird— don’t talk to me about no aliens in round I will look at you funny. I say this because I know what teams like that do, try to time skew to throw their opponents off. If this happens and the other side tries to do condo bad I will generally vote on it because I think condo can be abusive at times. All in All, do not run 28 offs (23 of them being theory) and then kick everything out and think you gonna get away with it. I don’t like that.

Kritiks, Topicality, Kritik Aff

This is my nicheeee. I love K rounds because I think they establish a good clash and make the round so much more entertaining. Even if you are running a basic Cap K or something like the Wakanda K I’m going to be amazed if you can explain these arguments well. One thing I will say is that I will raise a brow if you are running an identity K that you and your partner don’t fall under. White debaters running Afro Pess or Rememory always makes me side eye, so if the opponents (especially if they fall under the identity of said K) point it out or run a ballot argument, expect their win. In the same breath I will say white queer debaters should make sure their answers to poc identity Ks are not crossing a line, ask me what I mean in round if you are confused. I also have no issue voting against arguments that have been properly debunked on any side. If you do not think your articulation / understanding of a K is all the way there DONT run it. I don’t want you to leave your opponent lost in round and if I see a strong T (such as TVA or TUSFG) that isn’t abusive in standards or limits, I will vote against the K.

If You have any questions LMK!!

4 years HS policy, currently debating @ dartmouth.

she/her, shay-ma.
.
Email Chain:
sheimadebate@gmail.com

subject line: Texas Doubles '24 – AFF Dartmouth CE vs NEG Dartmouth BC
.

Online:
re truf blog - I am not flowing your doc, if something is incomprehensible, I am just as likely as your opponent to not have it down and will not post-facto fill gaps in my flow from your speech doc.

.

Other things:

I am good for what you're good at.

I should fall in the clash section of your pref sheet.

I think conditionality is probably(?) good

I judge kick unless u tell me thats so bad
.
Speaker Points:

no LD tricks or PF off-time roadmaps

ev ethics challenges r not case negs

"concede the ballot and lets have a discussion" = L 24 to the initiator
.
Student Safety:
Your opponents are not your enemies, be respectful toward each other.

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an unsafe point.

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

Liv (pronounced "leave") Birnstad –livbirnstaddebate@gmail.com AND bdltravelteam@gmail.com– any/all pronouns

Washington (DC) Urban Debate League '23 + Harvard '27

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

LD

I'm a policy judge who is good for your Ks or more trad LD Strats, but I won't be able to get the tricks debate. I judge a handful of LD debates in a season and will not be familiar with your topic.

College policy

I am not familiar with the topic; it's your burden to explain acronyms or any other norms I might miss because of that! Prioritize depth over breadth.

Highschool policy

TL;DR

****** if you send google docs, please make sure the settings allow downloads or copying. without this, evaluating card clipping/ethics violations is impossible for me.

i'll happily evaluate anything, i just care about you having fun and being kind to your opponents. anything you do that legitimately harms the safety of debate space will deck your speaks and make you lose.

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

theory? – sure but i wouldn't say im a theory hack

can i read __? – yes, just read it well

tech > truth? – i’ll reward good debate and i encourage you to just make fully warranted arguments above all else.

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

Bio

I debated with the Washington (D.C.) Urban Debate League, did all of the competitive nat circuit stuff, and went for a good mix of arguments (mostly K's on the neg and a combination of soft left and big stick affs). I coach the Boston Debate League's travel team with Mosie Burke and generally care a lot about the activity so feel free to do what you want and do best.

Working primarily with urban debate leagues, accessibility is extremely important to me. If tech is an issue for another team, make sure there is a way for them to access your evidence.

K’s / K Aff’s

I’m open to evaluating kritikal arguments. I’ll reward debaters that can articulate their theory of power and the nuances of it well. Regardless of my understanding of your lit, I will not fill in gaps for you with my personal knowledge of it. I’m not a great judge for psychoanalysis (because of personal biases against the origin of the literature and the practice of psychoanalysis) or high theory k’s generally. I will vote on it, but will be grumpy if you make me.

I don't think partnerships without a Black debater should read pess.

If you read an aff that uses methods like songs, poetry, etc, you're good to do that in front of me.

Theory & topicality

I’m a grumpy theory judge and think debaters need to really go for a theory argument if they want my ballot. Get off your blocks.

Happy to evaluate topicality, but I am not as well versed in the beautiful art of T as some other folks are.I am starting to believe that fairness is not an impact. Feel free to read it in front of me and convince me that it is or just go for something else.

card clipping/evidence ethics

If someone makes a card clipping accusation in the round (or another evidence ethics violation) I will stop the round after the speech in which it occurs, explain the stakes to the team that makes the accusation, and if they decide to continue with the accusation I'll evaluate the argument. if it gets to that point, i'll see if the cards were clipped. If so, the team that makes the accusation wins, if not, they lose.

*unless the tournament has alternative procedures.*

6,7,8+ off

I generally believe these kinds of debates are shallow and don't actually give teams as much leverage as they think apart from a time skew. while theory is not my bread and butter (see above) ill be a lil more lenient with condo with 6+ off.

misc

I don’t want to evaluate a troll/joke round.

I don't vote on things that happened before the reading of the 1ac.

if the round doesn’t go the way you want, i would be happy to listen to a redo + give feedback just send it to me within a week.

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

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

Hello, my name is Mehrin and I am a third-year Policy debater at Bronx Science.

Please put me on the email chain with these emails: chowdhurm8@bxscience.edu and bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

I appreciate being a good player and kind during debate rounds.

Judging Philosophy:

Tech>Truth: As long as you prove your arguments well, I'll vote for you

Clarity>Speed: make sure I can understand you

Good luck!

Please put me on the email chain: nilmo.contreras@gmail.com

Yes, you can spread, but PLEASE BE CLEAR.

Yes, it can be open CX.

Any type of argument is fine with me. But keep a SAFE SPACE for EVERYONE!!!

Offense is very important (Winning=Offense).

Generics ...

• DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. If you think your opponent has said something that could be one of these just make the argument and impact it out (it'll take like 30 seconds).
• I debated for Newark Science for a couple of years (doing both Policy and LD) and was primarily a K debater (this does not mean I will vote on one just because it's read) but I have a lot of different arguments.
• Impact out all of your arguments!
• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient). As in, you should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. Yes, I love big pictures but there needs to be some actual substance too like you can't just read a 4-minute overview in the 1AR over multiple flows that don't engage anything and expect a ballot.

Specifics ...

CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). A clever PIC is always good and fun but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff.

DAs are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.

- I'm also not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story (this is very important, make it logical and easy to follow).

Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook" or really high theory that is not properly explained, so err on the side of over-explanation (esp. if you're reading the philosophy of a long-dead French white dude). Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot!

FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.

I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.

But just try to have fun and learn lots in the round!!!

Email: jada.darby01@gmail.com

Hey! During my debate career I participated in K debate. In terms of judging preferences, debaters should feel free to do whatever they want. Being a K debater these are the arguments I love to hear the most. Also love performances, ultimately teams should do what they are most passionate about!

Debaters should give me a clear framing of my ballot . With spreading I'm not the biggest fan but if it's your choice, be sure to slow down on tags and most important arguments you want evaluated. If you are not clear imma tell you.

I will stop flowing after 4 off.

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

jaclyn (jack-lyn)

she/her

please put @bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com and eumj@bxscience.edu on the email chain

flow

clarity>speed

tech>truth

impact calc

have fun and be willing to learn!

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

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

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

Soda

She/Her

Please put me on the email chain: khens@bxscience.edu

General things:

tech > truth

clarity > speed

flow

Be a good person

Have fun!

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

IMPORTANT; IN ANY DEBATE SETTING OUTSIDE OF NOVICE POLICY, CONSIDER ME A LAY JUDGE WITH NO ABILITY TO FLOW, PROCESS OR EVALUATE ANY COMPLEX THEORY OR AFF/NEG K FRAMEWORK DEBATES. IF YOU DEBATE IN THESE DISCIPLINES OR ARE THEORY HEAVY, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU STRIKE ME OR GIVE ME YOUR LOWEST POSSIBLE PREFS. YOU DESERVE A JUDGE THAT CAN COMPETENTLY EVALUATE YOUR STYLE OF DEBATE .

If you DO get me as a judge, do not spread analytics or send your analytics in a speech doc even in final rebuttals. If you are arguing theory, don't spread it and give me instructions on how you think it should be evaluated with special emphasis on identifying your offense that justifies a ballot

North Star High School, Newark, NJ: I am a lay Novice Policy Coach. Lay means that my personal debate experience was long ago and absent any theory or kritiks.

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Comfortable with policy, but highly inexperienced with k, framework and theory.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

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

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

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

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

Open cross-x is fine.

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

emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com

I currently debate at NYU

I have fun debating and judging for the most part and enjoy when other debaters are having fun as well. Don't appreciate you being disrespectful or degrading to your opponents because I think that's bad for the community. Being mean is okay if you have the skills to back it up, but that's not the same as genuinely being a very ad hom/disrespectful debater.

I care less about what you debate and moreso how you debate it.

Defense is insufficient to win debates.

Debate is a communication game. I'm okay with speed, but of course not with incomprehensibility. I won't burden myself with yelling clear if I don't understand you, it simply won't reach my flow.

There are certain ethical challenges that I'm willing to adjudicate and others that I'll defer to tab. Not amazing for bringing outside beef into the room. Aside from things that are categorically violent (verbally abusing ur opponents, explicit race-, able-, sex-... -ism, etc), likely won't vote on reject the team, but I will reward clever implications of the substantive arguments on other parts of the flow.

My Name is Ruby McGaskill, I teach English I at Weequahic High School in Newark, NJ. I have been a teacher for 26 years. I have been a debate coach for 6 years. I am fine with spreading and open cross-ex. I am fine with critical arguments as long as you present a strong case. Please be clear and direct with your argument, making no assumptions. While I am fine with spreading, I would prefer that you start at 80% of your speed and then increase as I get adjusted to your voice.

Please keep the debate respectful as this is a learning experience for us all.

I will make sure to leave detailed feedback on the ballot. Please do not approach me in passing about the decision. If you have questions about my decision that was not clear on the ballot, you are welcome to contact me at rmcgaskill@nps.k12.nj.us. I will be sure to get back to you as soon as possible.

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

Name and Pronouns: Edmond Meng, He/him

tech >> Truth and Open Cross is OK

You can call me Edmond instead of Judge.

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

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

I like any arguments.

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

Dos and Dont's

DOs

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

DON'Ts

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

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

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means I will make the decision that requires no work from me unless neither team has a ballot which requires zero work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Flowing Practices

I flow 1AC and 1NC cross-x just in case it becomes important to the debate. For 2AC and 2NC cross-x I am mostly listening and writing feedback about the constructive. I will flow 1AC & 1NC with the speech doc open next to the flow. I am reading along with the speech and will catch if you do things like hide aspec so don't worry about that. For the other 6 speeches I am probably not looking at the speech doc. and just flowing what I hear. Don't read into it if I close my eyes or look up and away; I'm just trying to increase my focus to flow better.

Online Debate Update
If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. "Reject the argument solves all their offense" is an unwarranted claim and teams should capitalize on this more. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows holistically.

DA:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

CP:

For the neg I prefer that you have a solvency advocate. For the aff I think solvency deficits to the CP probably win most in front of me. I'm alright for competition debates if you are good at them. Spreading one liner standards in the 1ar and then exploding on them in the 2ar will make me have a very low threshold for 2nr answers look like. Similar for the 2nr, but I think the 2nr needs to flag the analysis as new and tell me it justifies new 2ar answers.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Please leave the cards in the file and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points. For aff v K perm is probably your best weapon, answer the theory of power especially if there is an ontology claim, and FW which outright excludes the K is probably weaker than a FW which just says the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. I'll vote on framework/topicality, for negs running it I think the "role of negation" is particular convincing and I need an offensive reason to vote, but defense on each aff standard/impact is just as important.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise. Perms test mutual exclusivity and I normally think they do this by resolving links through the perm. Multiple perms good/bad is a question to be debated on theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Complete line by line in the order that the opponents made the arguments
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

I am a novice judge. I don’t want any spreading because I would like to hear everyone’s arguments and facts clearly. I understand that time is precious in the debate world. I want to be a fair judge, so in order to do that I need to hear, process, and understand each side’s arguments but I can’t do that if I only catch some of their main points.

As a fair novice judge I will be documenting only what I hear and using the documents they send me as references. If it wasn’t spoken, I don’t write it down. I will not tolerate talking from the opposing team during one’s debate round, that’s what prep time is for so anything you want to talk about can be written down and spoken during the appropriate time(prep and cross-ex)

As a judge I will NOT be documenting cross-ex and the only reason I will be is if I overheard a fact that could’ve been used in the arguments of either Aff or Neg, and I will be writing that down as a note for the coaches to read on and talk with their team. So all arguments made in cross ex must originally be made in a formal speech in-order for me to document it on the flow.

7yrs of policy debate experience
Include me on the email chain -- My email: toure.i@northeastern.edu

- - -

I'm good with spreading.

Don't be any of the "-ists" (Racist, Sexist, etc.)

Call me Judge Or Ibrahima (Ee-bruh-hee-ma) in round (really wtv you prefer)

- - -

I can be swayed by any argument as long as it is fleshed out well. I believe in Tabula Rasa, although from my experience in debate, I like it when the Affirmative weighs the hypothetical implications of not doing the affirmative effectively. For the negative, any negative argument (traditional or untraditional) can be ran as long as its argued beyond a threshold.

As a judge, I default negative if the Affirmative has not done enough work to prove how the benefits to implementing the plan outweigh the status quo AND any potential harmful aftereffects to doing the plan. Whether it is a Kritik, TVA, CP, etc., the Aff must provide enough defense of their case and can't rely solely on hypothetical implications.

Not too familiar with this years topic so don't expect me to know every term. (24-25)
- - -

Don't violate any of the non-negotiables: no sexism, no racism, (any of the -isms). No insensitive comments. No blatant disrespect. Treat debate what it is, an academic space and a platform for the voice of marginalized communities and a way for new ideas to circulate.

- - -

More comments can be given pre-round.

---

DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY FOR THE BALLOT - I AM OPEN TO ANY AND ALL ARGUMENTS.

Email: mercywah28@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Mercy, and I am a junior in college. I debated for six years, so I understand how debate operates and debate lingo. I have been judging for 3 years now, and my favorite arguments to vote on are critiques and identity politics. I mostly ran black arguments in high school pertaining to black women, and I understand the difficulties of debating your identity. So if you are a black woman who centers black women, I will give you a 30.

I will flow tricky arguments, confusing frameworks, and frivolous theory arguments, but if not explained thoroughly, I will not vote on it.

I lean more towards truth over tech, but I understand the importance of being technical in debate. If impacted out correctly, I will evaluate tech first.

I am very familiar with LD and policy, I did not do PF in high school but- however, I can still clearly judge, follow and understand a public forum round. Don't be afraid to break a norm in a public forum if I am judging you- like reading a critique.

Lastly, don't say anything that actively makes the space exclusive for people. In other words, do not be anti-black and all of the other phobics- homophobic, xenophobic, fatphobic etc.

Have fun and respect one another. I also never have paper or a pen so please bring extra.