Pronouns: She/they. I don't tolerate transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism. If you have an issue with this, strike me.

Affiliation: Plano Senior High 19'

Graduated from Arizona State University Online, 2023

Contact: shreyachaudhari2001@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

I do IE Events only, I have no proper experience/knowledge to judge any debate events.

I have judged speech events for 3+ years and have no previous speech/debate experience. I am looking for clean delivery and clear arguments. If one team can successfully argue against their opponent with no rebuttals, I would give them the win. I am looking for those who will take their time to explain any points presented to further their argument without inadvertently or intentionally repeating their/other student's previous statements. I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.

I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

hello!!!! my name is nidhi (she/her), and if you're reading this, i'm prolly judging you on a local novice round.

i have experience in primarily congress, and some extemp.

extemp:

pls pls pls just answer the question, and u will be fine.

i'm pretty trad for extemp, just pls make sure u have a solid roadmap so it's easy for me to follow

make sure ur sources r not ages old (2018 was 6 years ago, and therefore outdated :l)

Hey y'all! My name is Akshita, and I did extemp (also dabbled in congress) for four years at Coppell. I am now a rising freshman at Smith College, planning to study English & Economics.

Extemp

This is the event that I have the most experience with and am the most qualified to judge.

I keep up with the news as much as I can, so if you are lying, it reflects poorly on you. I would much rather have a speech that prioritizes integrity over perfection! (Also, don't lie about your sources. I am not going to audit you, but I expect honesty - forgetting a source is not as bad as being caught for lying about one.)

I prefer an analysis heavy speech - that is not to say that your delivery will not be considered, but if your analysis is clearly the best in the round, I will excuse a few delivery flubs here and there.

Have clear substructure. I hear speeches that do not have adequate warranting, and if I am missing a warrant, I cannot buy the argument. I do my best to not make connections for you, so think through your A and B to make sure that you have the most amount of information to effectively make your point. This is one of the first things I look for when I am deciding ranks.

Though layered analysis is growing more popular, I prefer unified analysis. You could still pull it off, but you need to do a much better job on every other aspect for me to buy your speech at face value.

I do not care about you going overtime! Fitting all that information in 7 minutes is difficult, and as long as you are under 7:30, I will not downrank you. That said, however, use your time wisely. I hear (and have given) many top heavy speeches. If a point is a couple seconds longer than another, that is fine, but if your first point is pushing 2 minutes, and your third point barely scrapes 45 seconds, you have mismanaged your time.

I like a balance of quality sources. While you can (and should) cite newspapers and dailys, I find that think tanks and journal articles can be an incredibly subtle, yet powerful addition to your speech. Unpopular opinion, but I also enjoy authors.

I frown upon notecards if you are in varsity - memorization is part of the challenge, and I would rather have someone who stumbles a couple of times than someone who relies heavily on a notecard.

Don't rush! I spent a lot of my career doing this, and it is not fun to listen to. Take your time, go slow, and ensure that every point is being heard.

Make good eye contact. I don’t look up often from my computer because I am taking notes and giving feedback, but if I’m looking up and you are not looking at me, it gives off the impression that you were never looking at me!

I love humor! The more of it you incorporate, the more brownie points you get. Make clever jokes and do your best to not can them; however, please use it appropriately and evaluate whether the topic needs the joke or not.

Most importantly, have fun and be yourself! This may seem like generic advice, but you can clearly differentiate between an extemper who is having fun and one who is not, and even if the speech quality is the same, the vibes are important too. Debate is truly a game, so play it! It will help you deviate from the "robotic" extemper style, and set yourself apart!

Congress

I know this event too. I like good clash and people who make unique arguments. I also love good structure and line by lines when it comes to refutations. Debaters who make it easy for me to follow the debate will be at the top of my ballot.

I appreciate those who choose to P.O., especially when they run a quick and efficient chamber. I try my best to ensure that a good P.O. will always advance, until and unless the competition is so intense and the breaks are very difficult. Additionally, if you have made a mistake, but the room does not call you out on it, I will take note. Your ranks will significantly go down if you continue to make mistakes.

Be respectful during CX. I don't want to hear you talking over each other. I do like sass, but keep it to a minimum, and don't insult anybody.

The best debaters, in my opinion, are those who have good strategy when they give their speech. If you continually give the first aff/neg, you come off as someone that lacks the ability to refute arguments. If you are always the crystallization speech, the strength of your own arguments aren't necessarily able to shine. Be strategic with your round vision and how you want the debate to pan out.

Have fun! Again, Congress is such an accessible and interesting event, so take time to write witty AGD's and use them!

Debate

Add me to the email chain (make the subject name the tournament name, year, and round; ex: Harvard, 2024, R3 John v. Smith) - akshitakrishnan23@gmail.com.

I am a lay judge. I try to pay attention to what you are saying, so I won't be looking at doc very often - please do NOT spread.

I am going to need handholding. Explain each argument clearly and weigh well.

I try my best to vote off of anything, but I need to understand it well enough to do so.

Tech > truth. I will do my best to not intervene.

Have fun :)

I am a parent judge, and I started to volunteer this year. This is my 3rd time to serve as a LD judge. Please prepare accordingly.

My email address is: xiuquanluo@gmail.com

Sarah Lyngholm

Affiliation: Plano Senior High 2019

Experience: Competed at haggard middle school, Judged middle school events in high school, and I have been judging High school tournaments since 2021.

Contact: selyngholm@gmail.com

A little about me:

She/Her.

Transphobia, Homophobia, and Racism are not received well unless necessary to the piece.

I will always appreciate a warning about any sensitive content in a piece.

I will not stand for inappropriate etiquette within the tournaments. I encourage students to stay off of their phones (unless taking notes), stay quiet between speakers, and refrain from eating/chewing gum during rounds. Being disrespectful during rounds will end up on ballots, but will not affect the competitor's rank (unless absolutely necessary).

I am typically an I/E judge, so keep that in mind if putting me in a debate pool. I do not favor spreading during debate rounds, and I will judge based on how you present your piece or argument.

TREAT PEOPLE WITH KINDNESS AND RESPECT.

I am a varsity Congress debater.

What I look for in a debate:

In all events I want to see extremely strong logic driven warranting. I also highly value a strong substatianted framework if you are doing WSD. In addition, I do not like to see very large impacts like extinction, unless sufficiently warranted. Arguments must be answered, a dropped argument is a lost argument.

Overall I want to see a down to earth, realistic, and most importantly practical debate. Spreading dilutes your arguments, this is a debate not a circus.

About

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
• PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.