General Things:

In absence of a framework debate I'll default to a somewhat arbitrary combination of policy making and in-round educational value (or harms) forged by my personal experiences in debate. But that's not what anyone wants, so tell me how to vote and why.

I will call for evidence in very few cases and I do not want to be on the email chain. Take the time to actually develop your own arguments and the arguments of your authors in the rebuttals.

In the rebuttals I prefer depth to breadth. Explain and develop the arguments you're going to go for rather than saying "extend my ______ evidence" 50 different times without any further analysis about why those extensions matter.

My ears are slower than they used to be. I'm comfortable with spreading, but please make your taglines clear and clearly distinguished. I will tell you if I cannot understand you by loudly saying “clear” during your speech.

It’s critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it. That means you'll need to explain it to me in clear and understandable terms. Assume I know nothing about your [aff, K, CP, etc.] prior to the round.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Specific Arguments:

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. The definition and violation. Tell me in detail why the aff isn't topical.
2. The standards debate. Tell my why your interpretation of the topic is preferable.
3. Specific abuse is not a must-have for me. If you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and that an interpretation including the aff as topical is bad for debate you can win even in the absence of abuse.

DA's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me than most judges. This doesn't mean you can't win on "risk of a link" arguments, but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh smaller but more likely impacts (unless of course your framework explains why that's the best way to evaluate risks...). Having a clear and realistic internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. It’s important to me that there is at least some extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get much weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage that no one has mentioned since the 1AC.

CP’s - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning solvency or D/As in terms of defensive arguments: strong defense on the net benefit is a potential reason to prefer the permutation, or just the plan alone. Perms are also viable round winners for me. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy, but feel free to specify (or demand that the aff specifies). Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and/or the world of the perm are important to me.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments that what we do and say in the round matters enough to be a voting issue. That said, if the aff is winning reasons why the plan is a good policy that helps people then that could very well mean their representations while advocating for it are also good. If your alt represents an action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are important to me. Otherwise, make sure you establish a framework so that I know how to evaluate the arguments in your K against the arguments your opponents are making.

Theory - I'm willing to vote on theory. If you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in clear terms whats wrong with the action of the other team.

While I’ve certainly voted in opposition to my personal views many times before, both on theory and other arguments, here is a short list of things I think are generally true:

Slow WAY down when you read your theory blocks. I’m not going to read them and there’s no way I can type them as fast as the fastest debaters can say them.

Everyone should be disclosing, but without an explicit rule enforced by the tournament I don’t think failure to disclose is a voting issue. Sometimes in life you’re gonna be surprised, learning to adapt on the fly is a good skill that debaters should be developing.

Performative contradictions are bad, and might sometimes be a voting issue.

Conditional arguments are okay, maybe even necessary for effective negative strategy. But the more of them there are and the more contradictory they are with each other, the more abusive they become. For example, reading a capitalism K and an economic DA rooted in capitalistic ideology in the same round is a bad idea. Adding in a CP that solves the DA while linking to the K is a potential voting issue.

Affirmatives should be topical. Switch sides debate and the existence of other educational programs and activities solves pretty much all the offense I’ve ever heard on this point.

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

Please make sure you are talking clearly and concisely so I can easily understand your arguments.

Please sign post so it is easier to follow the round so I know which specific argument you are attacking your opponent.

I am a policy professional and adjunct professor by day, but new to debate and judging debate. Spread at your own risk! It is not easy for me to follow.

As in my profession, I will be looking for solid evidence and clear, civil discourse.

I do not know debate terminology so that will not impress me, but I'm sure looking forward to being impressed by your talents!

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it, my email is: @sarahelcole2002@gmail.com

Former University of Wyoming Policy Debater (2021-2022)

Former Thunder Basin High School LD debater (2018-2021)

Important Information:

Impact out all your arguments, I will not do the work for you.

Do impact and evidence comparison.

Speak clearly. I don't care what your speed is as long as you are comprehensible. If I cannot understand you I will stop flowing. I will not yell clear; I think yelling clear is judge intervention.

Kritiks:

Explain what the world of the alternative works and how it competes with the aff.

Need a specific link to the aff

Topically

Explain the impacts of T, why is it a voter?

Don't just say limits and ground- explain what the neg v aff limits and ground look like.

Theory

I will judge kick unless the aff gives a clear explanation as why not to.

CPs and DAs

I generally think Condo is good and you get as many planks as you want, but I will hear every argument and weigh it accordingly.

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

Pronouns: He/Him

I have judged five different tournaments over the last two years. I do not have any other debate participation or judging experience. I am an engineer by training and I have one daughter in Debate at Corner Canyon High.

I prefer slow, deliberate speech. I want to see comprehensive road-mapping, signposting, and clear summaries at the end of rebuttals. Please provide a straightforward, easy-to-follow debate. I expect mutual respect between competitors.

Please provide a detailed explanation of why you think you won. E.g. tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc.

Please cite supporting evidence for your claims. Also, according to Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I am generally a "tech over truth" judge.

Any argument raised crossfire needs to be reiterated in a speech. Otherwise, I will not consider it.

Please respond line-by-line to arguments in the order they were presented.

If there is an email chain between competitors, please include me at gfrohman@gmail.com

Have fun!

PF

In the final speech please summarize why I should vote for your contentions and not for the opponents' contentions. Please include impact calculus.

LD

I prefer traditional LD (vs. progressive), but I am okay with plans and counter plans. I do not like kritiks.

Policy

Only spread if you can do it clearly. I prefer basic arguments, I do not want to see kritiks or tricks.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one. I am not a fan of spreading or Cap Ks.

tl;dr

tech > truth, but i'm more likely to be persuaded by dynamic and engaging speakers

i'm bad at flowing. removing cards from your case and slowing down will enormously help you win my ballot.

if you try to use tech to box out less experienced/trad LD opponents you will not win my ballot. slow down, drop the jargon and meet them at their level to have the best chance to win.

i don't really care about cards, make smart arguments.

i flow arguments, not authors. if you reference an argument by the author, i will have no idea what you are referring to

i like K debate but i'm not experienced with it. slow down, explain in plain english, and clearly label the parts. K affs are cool but i prefer it if they still defend the resolution.

collapse, collapse, collapse. going for everything wins you nothing

Long Version for Tryhards and People With Too Much Time

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am now the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell. If you run disclosure T against a trad aff with no plan text, I sign my ballot before the 1AR.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is ascourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I will sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do. There is no educational value to an activity where your opponent can't engage with you.

On Critical Debate:

I like a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a non-topical K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors. I don't flow authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF: If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy, and as a judge I have an obligation to uphold that norm. That means no plans, no counterplans, no theory, and no topicality.

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

My experience is pretty vast. I competed in all the standard debate events, along with Extemp in speech. Competed at NSDA’s in Congress, PF, and Extemp. (Broke in PF) Competed at NCFL’s and went to Semi’s in Congress. Competed at TOC in Congress.

I’m from a pretty small debate team originally that had no access to high end resources such as specific coaching, camps, briefs, etc. Because of this I’m mostly a traditional judge. While progressive arguments are fine, comprehension is sometimes difficult for myself.

I’m primarily a tech judge over a truth judge. While I wouldn’t believe the sky is red, claims that go uncontested and not clashed against, that get brought up in final speeches will be weighed.

K/T can be brought up, but for the most part goes way over my head. I’m fine listening to these arguments.

Signposting and roadmaps are really appreciated. Grouping together specific args, I.e. three turns on contention 1, would be more useful than reading 1 turn, then a disad, then attack the warrant, then bring up another turn.

Evidence quality matters, empirics and peer reviewed evidence is weighed more than simple news evidence.

I’m pretty much fine with students deciding how the round should go, just communicate it with me if you want to do anything outside the norm

I personally hate speaks, I think they are a bad tie breaker, and I never want to be the reason that students don’t break when they win debates, because of this, I give the highest points I can. The exception to this, is courtesy in cross. If you are being rude, I will give lower speaks. There’s no reason to be insulting for someone misunderstanding questions, arguments, etc.

I don’t flow cross, please bring up what’s said in cross in your speech, if you want it to be flowed

Speed is fine, although if I can't understand it I will say clear, this will only happen once. High pace conversation pace is best for me.

Have fun! I know that debate is highly competitive, but it should more fun than stress.

Email: prestongknutson@gmail.com Email me if you have questions.

TL;DR

I judge off the flow (unless told otherwise). I'm game for anything as long as it's justified. Be respectful. Don't take it too seriously. Organized debaters earn high speaker points. Have fun!!!

Experience

In high school, I competed for four years in policy debate. In college, I competed for two years doing both college LD and BP. I've judged high school policy, LD, and PF. But it's been a little while, so I may be a little rusty.

Overall

Argumentation comes first, but I love organized debaters. I won many debates simply by organizing the flow in my favor for the judge. This is a great way to get good speaker points in front of me.

In your last speech, tell me what I should be writing on my ballot. What are the key voters, and why did you win them?

If you want to go fast, go as fast as long as you are still accessible to everyone in the room. Please go slow on parts you want me to flow (e.g. taglines, years). I should still be able to hear the evidence you're reading, so speak as fast as you can while still speaking clearly.

I love an effective cross-examination! Find holes! Get clarification! But be respectful. This is another great way to earn good speaker points in front of me.

You will lose my ballot if you are racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory in a way not listed here.

Have fun! I loved making jokes in rounds! Don't take yourselves too seriously. Debate is educational, but it's also a game, so enjoy yourself!

Policy

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow. I love a good policy-oriented round, theory round, critical round, whatever you want to debate as long as you justify the arguments.

On topicality/theory, I am open to voting in favor of reasonability if you tell me the reason and justify why your affirmative is reasonably within the range of the topic (or reasonably meeting the interpretation on a theory flow). What are the implications of considering you reasonable v. not reasonable? How does that affect the topic education at large (education voter)? How does that affect debate at large (fairness voter)? That does not mean I will vote for reasonability every time, the negative (or other side of the theory flow) should be telling me the opposite. Why is it not reasonable, how does it harm topic education or debate fairness at large? You can certainly also tell me why I should not defer to reasonability, but to be persuasive, be more specific than "Reasonability is bad because it's too subjective".

For counterplans, I think your ability to debate theory can be a key way to win or lose (specifically for things like delay counterplans, different actors, consultation, etc.). That goes for the aff side of handling a CP and the neg side. Theory is by no means the only way to win with this argument. But often, people waste time on theory saying the same thing over and over again that is not effective or they do not spend enough tine on theory and lose as a result.

I love critical debate, but don't assume I already know your criticism and understand your alternative. If I don't understand it by the end of the round, I'm going to assume it is not an effective one (especially considering the education of K debate is usually its driving force).

LD

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow.

In LD, I love when debaters have an effective value and value criterion debate. If you generally agree on a value, then don't waste time explaining which one is better, tell me your case better fulfills that value. If they are different, get into the criterion debate. Why is your criterion better? How does your opponent's criterion actually support your value? Get creative! Be effective!

I'm open to anything in LD as long as you justify it. I never debated LD myself, so I don't have a ton of preferences beyond that.

PF

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow.

Be respectful in cross fire. Be extra respectful in grand cross. It doesn't look good on you to get angry at your opponents. If they're doing something wrong (hiding evidence, sidestepping a question, not letting you ask your question, etc.) I probably see it too. I know you need to be assertive too, so just be respectful and leave space for everyone in the round.

I did policy for 1 year in High-school without a coach And somehow ended up Being the Head coach of East High school. I don't know how this happened and I want to go home.

I am a technique over truth judge, I will vote on theory, topicality, Condo, and all other goofy things if I believe it comes down to that. Nothing is really off limits when it comes technique and how you deal with them. I just love good technique.

That also means I will give wins over uncontested arguements.

I have given wins to teams that have claimed that climate change isn't real because their opponents didn't touch it. No matter how ridiculous it, you just have to relate it back to the case

If you are going to speak fast, it will be beneficial to my flows if you slow down and make it clear when you read a new card. Read the title of the card, date, and author of the card clearly. That greatly helps me and you if I can correct flow.

With flows in mind. Please have a good road map before you start to speak. I will struggle without one. Though it's not required, I would recommend asking for permission to start a speech so my flows are in order (after you roadmap)

1. any reference to high school musical will make you lose points. That franchise doesnt exist, yes I know I coach the High-school musical school, but it doesn't exist

With that in mind, have fun, be respectful, keep in mind that I barley know what I'm doing, and good luck.





Debate is love
Debate is life

Don't Be a bully or overly aggressive. Being passionate is okay, but do not disrespect your opponent.

Rebuttals: Create logical and/ or emotionally persuasive arguments

Off-Time Road Maps: I encourage off-time roadmaps so that I can flow easier.

Spreading: I can not keep up with spreading and ask that you avoid using it with me. If I cannot understand your speech due to spreading, I will be swayed to vote against you.

K's and Theories: I am open to K's and theory arguments. However, I will not vote for them if they do not make sense and have no link.

CX: I will not flow during your CX and any new information made during it, must be said during the debate for me to add it to my flow. I will only intervene if necessary.

Timing: I expect you to time yourselves (If you need me to time you and do any time signals please talk to me directly)

Overall I want a straightforward, easy-to-follow debate. I am open to unique plans and encourage you to think outside the box. I view debate as a game, so have fun.

Email: stephaniejomarquezz00@gmail.com - Add me to the email chain.

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
My GOATs: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Vontrez, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

I am probably considered a clash judge, (Policy v K) and (K v FW) are my favorite type of debates but I don’t mind evaluating (K v K) or Policy throwdowns. Theory and Phil debates hold a soft spot in my heart.

specific thoughts:

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: big fan. Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: Trix your heart out but be clear and let me know what im voting on.

Speaks:I give them fr.

Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com

NOV 2024 update:

I've only judged one tournament on this topic, so I'm vaguely familiar with some arguments but if there's a couple of acronyms, maybe explain what they are to me (I have yet to have someone explain what Mayo-Alice is to me).

Also, you need slow down so I can actually flow your arguments. I am NOT as fast as I use to be, that or send your analytics. Otherwise, very high chance I will miss some of your arguments on the flow. If you spread your analytics like you do your cards, I will not be able to flow your speech. Your best bets are either send your analytics or slow down. Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place? Although it doesn't really matter if I end up flowing everything as debaters tend to drop 80% of arguments by the 1AR anyways as I have noticed ( I have only seen like 3 teams not guilty of this in the past year).

I usually end up understanding what's happening in the debate by the 1AR. But again, I'm pretty rusty, tend to lean more towards truth over tech (unless its something really bad like a dropped perm in the 1AR), and the best way to get me to vote for you is to make sure there's like 3 clear voters why you win, a very very clear internal link chain scenario or well fleshed out link work and impact calc, and overall just confidence that it makes more sense to vote aff or neg. CLEAR INTERNAL LINK CHAIN SCENARIOS ARE THE EASIEST WAY TO GET MY BALLOT.

P.S. I like jokes, gets ya extra speaks in my book. Also using my name I tend to find persuasive.

Recent voting decisions worth noting:

Voted aff on condo when Peninsula LL went against 11 off.

Voted neg against condo as the 1ar claimed it was dropped but the negative ran 1 off so I ended up not buying the argument as I'm more of a truth voter rather than tech. It really came off as more of a cop out to because the aff got out debated on the k flow which to me just made an aff ballot that much less persuasive to me.

Voted neg on econ disad in octos at meadows simply because I felt the neg did good enough solvency takeouts on case with better internal link chain scenarios. Both teams didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the evidence mentioned in the 2NR/2AR so I even went through the effort of reading the evidence and then applying it to the arguments made in the debate.

Identity:

I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke.

I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, and my favorite hobby is freestyle street dance.

Experience:

High school: 2 years.
Went to camp at the Weber State Debate Institute in 2015 (Lab leaders: Mike Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk.
I mostly ran straight up policy arguments and plenty of Marx.

College: 2 years.
My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.
Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.

Procedurals:

I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 15% every time I say "clear"

Flex prep is fine.

Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.

Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.

Argument preference:

I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.

I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.

However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.

I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:

- When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.

- If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).

- If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.

I usually vote aff when:

- It makes sense to me what the aff does

- I buy the permutation

- I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense

- I don't buy the negative's link work

- I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff

I usually vote neg when:

- I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff

- I buy the alt solves the K/aff

- I don't think the aff actually does anything

- I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.

Policy Debate - I have 1 year of experience judging LD/PF debates and two years of judging Policy Debate. I have been judging on the national circuit as a Policy Judge, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. I also judged Policy at the National Debate Tournament in Des Moines, Iowa.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing—This past season, I have found that I don't mind speeding or spewing. As long as I have the document, feel free to deliver your arguments rapidly. I rely heavily on the document but have developed the ability to flow somewhat by listening. While clarity is not critical, I must understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- I'm open to kritiks. I'm not deeply familiar with all the literature. While I'm open to framework arguments, I'm not very into theory, so please explain everything in detail. I prefer if the alternative to the Kritik relates to the real world and you prove how it solves the issues rather than just focusing on the framework. Please explain the whole story of the Kritik—the links, the internal connections, the impacts, and the alternatives.

K Affs—I was exposed to them last season, and I don't dislike them, but I suggest you run them at your own risk.

T/Theory—I don't love theory-only debates; however, I am open to evaluating actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving in-round abuse is going to be pretty high.

However, topicality is a little bit different. I believe it is the aff's burden to be topical, so if the neg can solidly prove why it is untopical and how that hurts the debate space, I will vote on it.

Counterplans—I love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have a net benefit; I will not kick out counterplans for you. Please be very clear on what you are kicking. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP, you will lose on both. Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still learning to evaluate everything.

Disads - This is pretty basic; make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, and link it to the impact. I like a good extinction impact, and I'm very pleased if you can convince me, but I will admit that very few teams have been able to get me there.

Case - The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so you must prove solvency. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence; your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I am very story-driven. Tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love off-time roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up, but there are no guarantees I will catch everything. Your cards are critical. I rely heavily on them. The more organized your cards are, the better. Don't be afraid to tell me how you are winning in the cards. Spell it out, highlight it, bold it - color it, and keep sending it to me until the very end; I don't care if it's the same cards --- remind me why you are winning! It's a crutch I'm happy to use until I get better. Make sure your cards are up to date. I've voted against teams specifically because of the fact that the cards were obsolete. It's policy, and you are arguing for real-world change. I've witnessed a seasoned judge checking recent news to verify if a cited card was applicable, and unfortunately, it wasn't. As a result, that team lost. I adhere to that approach. Debate hard and have fun!

To put it simply, I am a lay judge. However, I can keep up with your logic, and I love logic and well founded arguments. I have watched my kids in speech and debate and have learned to really appreciate passion. If you believe it, I am more likely to. Explain and defend your position well, and convince me. Please be respectful of each other in the process.

I do not feel comfortable disclosing results at the end of the round, I apologize for any issue that may cause.

I believe debate is a communication event, so I'm not too fond of speeding through cases and using too much jargon. You can have off-the-clock road maps and can use your phones as timers. Cross-examinations need to be respectful and thoughtful. Please provide voters with your final speech.

Key-are-uh

Please include me on the email chain: chiararae13@gmail.com
If you can pronounce the Italian, 'Chiara', feel free

**If you are not a clear speaker I will not be able to understand you :((**
Will say clear twice then stop flowing
- Apparently I have legit auditory issues so please don't mumble :( especially over video

~ Have been thinking a lot about accessible language within both debate and the current political climate. I have very purposely written my updated paradigm using "casual language"

I've Noted....
~ Things that make me actively Sad
~ Things I like
~ Other Framing
~ For Fun

Support y'all so much for being here and trying!!!
I will SO strongly enforce that debate SHOULD {as in ought, not as is implied by the resolution} be a safe & educational space. I do not think you can have the latter without the former.

Please feel free to bring up any clarifying questions, comments, concerns, etc.
Learned all styles of speech&debate & competed in @least one tournament for each debate event in HS under Scott Odekirk. An, unfortunately cut short, stint in college under Ryan Wash.
~ I tend to be quite personable& expressive. That will have absolutely nothing to do with my RFD.
~ Policy has my heart though Lincoln Douglas has definitely weaseled its way in - Pre-Stanford '25: I've not judged circuit LD since 2019

You're welcome to run whatever you choose to run so long as you're able to articulate it well.

~~~

~ I prefer flowing off paper. Willing to upload & send via email
~ Ask to see my flow prior to attempted post-rounding :D
~ If you, a coach, etc, think I missed anything and want to post round me, I will kindly request you not ask: "Well why was this argument not weighed against x etc blah blah blah" when you/your debater did not read that argument or anything similar. There’s a difference between asking questions and post rounding. Please learn it.

Things that make me Actively Sad

**The space is yours so long as we keep it safe & have at least a professional level of respect for everyone involved**
~ 0/10 throwing food at your opponents, generally no matter the arg
While more likely to be occurring in college, that's an idea of where that line is for me. If it’s a question, prolly don’t do it.

~ If I, nor your opponents know what your AFF / OFF is or does, I will not be voting on it
~ Card dumps without extending 1AC/1NC ev first
~ "Extend x card" w/o providing warrants or anything substantial (??)
~ I don't care if you run one (1) off or ten (10). However, if you want me to waste 14 pieces of flow on your 1NC, then have each one of those off be a viable 2NR strategy. It's such bad practice for you and everyone else. Environmentalism args where

~ Bad Card Cutting Practices: poor tagging, author qualifications, evidence quality, & if most of your card isn’t underlined I have some genuine questions :/
~ Generic Framework – specificity is key and there is a good and bad way to do FW against a K Aff {!!}
~ Generic Cap K – similar to FW except worse due to how often y’all use cap for everything & how it is the most boring and generic version of it

#StopWastingTimeOnFrivolousTheory

~ Run the Speaks K & I will auto deduct 2 speaks minimum
~ Judge Prefs Theory – absolutely unnecessary in high school 0/10
~ New Affs Bad, Disclosure Theory, or any other “mehmehmeh we just don’t want to hit a new aff and actually do the work and engage with the aff mehmehmeh” – do better and be more creative; this is just lazy and disrespectful
~ Condo for anything less than 4-5 off. If you try to run condo on 2 or less off I will have a bad taste in my mouth :( duh it's conditional !! who cares!! dare you to provide anything that’d fit such a silly interp! that’s just a lack of willingness to engage with the arguments which is : ((
~ Haven't spent enough time in LD to not consider Trix / as part of Frivolous Theory Issues

Speaks Fairy Energy

~ Understanding and explaining your arguments without an over-reliance on unnecessary buzz words & jargon that don't mean anything by themselves
~ Good TVA's that don't take away the entire premise of the K Aff
~ Alt. Causes
~ Good case turns

~ Giving any of your speeches entirely off the flow
~ A clear willingness to engage with all arguments (will be super sad if y'all aren't listening and debate like "Two Ships Passing In The Night"- please stop relying on your blocks to "answer" everything)
~ Creative & Engaging Strategies {using?? the critical thinking skills debate teaches you? to think about the world? and other perspectives?? dang kiara you're going too far now}
~ proper rehighlighting
~ "x Cross ex reference"

K Framing

K debate makes me really sad lately so here are some things you can do that'd make me happy & overall improve the way you do K/ Debate as a whole. This is applicable for the K Aff, K on Neg, or {fav of all}, KvK

~ The link debate is simultaneously what I have and will vote on net more over any other aspect of the Kritik
~ You do still need to explain why** that matters
~ Cross Ex as a whole is under- utilized but truly literally is....free real estate...
~ Your 1NC Link should be written and based off of 1AC evidence and 1AC Cross
~ Link walls are not only so cutesy&funsy but they literally come from the language of the other team omg (!!) Utilize CX y'all , K debate or not
~ Genuinely unsure why we stopped inserting re- highlighting of other teams' evidence

13/10 support performance
-50/10 don't support dropping the performance - what is the point of wasting time on a 1AC/1NC to not do anything with it after??

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. there’s also no need to be overly aggressive. Debate already has a long history of pushing people out. Don’t be part of it.

For Fun

~ I love any & all books and would super appreciate any recs you have

~ I have super fun acrylics & love showing them off {no this does not effect my typing. prefer all my gorgeous G2’s anyway}

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Debated

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Coaching

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

Email chain: ec [dot] powers [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com

College only: rockchalkdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Complete arguments contain three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Debate accordingly.

Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that change is bad. In general I enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and use that story to implicate other portions of the debate. I attempt to avoid judge intervention at all costs, I usually look for the easiest path to the ballot when deciding. I think that 3rd and 4th level explanation of arguments and why they matter is particularly important rather than just asserting something as true or dropped.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not. In addition, I think teams like to rely on their evidence far too much, while debate is a research activity I find that the art of argument has been lost. I think that making smart arguments from evidence already read is often better than unnecessary card spamming.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time. I will watch the time like a hawk, if you plan on conversing with your partner about debate-related things then you should plan on running a prep timer.

Judges that are unwilling to vote on condo bad are academically bankrupt and lying to you when they say they are “tech over truth”.

Every time someone reads animal wipeout, an angel loses its wings.

Hidden theory arguments, e.g. aspec on a T flow, is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding theory arguments will have a speaker point implosion.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and/or contact people if you find that their evidence has an ethics violation. If you have done that and the necessary changes have not been changed, I will vote on it. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game and up for debate.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (it’s my initials if that helps with pronunciation).

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

I am a policy judge. I debated for 3-4 years, coached for 3 more, and have judged for 4ish years now (all policy).

I can understand spewing/spreading/whatever else you call it.

I do not flow cx so if you make a good point you need to bring it up in your next speech or I will not flow it through. If I am typing during cx, I am probably catching up on my notes from the previous speech.

I like judging on impact calc, but the role of the debate is the most important thing to me (if aff or neg does not fulfill their roles, it is an automatic loss). I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way.

***Make sure you flow your arguments through unless you intentionally drop them***

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a gmail

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

I think I am best for k v k and k v fw/policy rounds. I lean towards truthy styles of debate but I view tech and truth as equally important. Go for less in the rebuttals. Write my ballot. You should be able to slow down and tell me why you win I will do very little work for you I promise you that.

codyski78@gmail.com

Fundamentally, say cool things. Make interesting arguments and I’ll subconsciously like you more.

Keep the debate space healthy. It's unfortunate that debaters have “stereotypes”, but the space has been home to a lot of toxic interaction. Homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, or general discrimination, will not be tolerated. Any or all of which will result in an immediate termination to the current speech and round (This includes arguments as-well, don’t have a contention that reasons the wage gap is a good thing).

I’d say I'm more tech than truth, But I’m only as tech as you’ll let me be. Don’t outspread your opponents, especially online, and don’t run theory if your opponents don’t know what theory is. I can’t say that I’ll drop you if you do those things, but I’d like you a-lot more if you kept the space competitive and educational, while at the same time working to beat your opponents. I'm comfortable with speed and have no qualms voting on theory. I’d love to judge a technical debate, just keep it professional.

A-lot of people say debate is a game (Alex O’Brien) but some of the more refined amongst us would recognize that debate is a sales pitch. Show me your Ideas, be creative, play to your strengths and sell me something. If you do that, I'll give you good speaks and you'll probably win the round. It’s simply not enough to have incredible arguments.

How do I know if you have great arguments if you deliver them poorly? Your thoughts are only as good as your words… and all that stuff.

So framework in PF is strange… but just as valid as theory in my opinion. If you don’t give a framework that's fine (I'll assume Cost Benefit), and If you do give a framework it’s not an auto win, you have to prove why your framework is better than your opponents, and then I can evaluate it. (Keep in mind, I want to keep the round competitive, and frameworks are not widespread in PF yet)

I did policy throughout high school and I read fem primarily my senior year. I’m versed in most literature and will try to judge at your level.

top-level things: please put me in the email chain (sahajarutledge@gmail.com). Tag-team is fine and spreading is fine (I can follow practically any speed) - but PLEASE enunciate (it’ll be a big part of your speaker points) and slow down a little through the rebuttal speeches. AND IF YOU ARE READING TECHNICAL ACRONYMS PLEASE SAY THE FULL VERSION AT LEAST ONCE. (that’s pointed at any topic that involves a lot of niche agencies/technology)

Please sign post and LABEL arguments, I don't want to be forced to have another speech before the 2ac on what everything is called. Organized speeches with consistent structure and numbered arguments are the #1 way to ensure that everything gets on my flow. If you run more than 3 off and don't pause for a second when switching between them to give me time to also switch the flows I'll be annoyed and unapologetic if something gets left off the flow. I legitimately hate when debaters fly through the off and don't differentiate when they move to another argument.

I’m tech>truth but with a caveat that I’ll be mad if your arguments are flat-out absurd (i.e. the sky is purple, Mexico is part of the US, etc) but for the most part, I’ll vote on what you read regardless if I like/dislike it. However, if you run any homophobic/racist/sexist/etc. disguised as theory your speaks will be dropped and I won't hear you out/vote on them. I’m okay with overviews but please don’t get excessive with simple arguments that can be done on the line by line. (Don’t spend 5 minutes telling me what T is MOVE ON)

arg specifics

Case: PLEASE keep this part of the debate organized and keep the line by line in order. If there are solvency deficits (as in no solvency was read for example) you don't have to spend a disproportionate time responding to it. I only need to know that you also know that something isn't a full argument I don't need to be convinced of it.

T/Theory: I firmly believe that theory is important in debate HOWEVER please don’t keep repeating the same 1nc shell in every speech and YOU HAVE TO PROVE ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE to get me to vote on theory. Utah debaters - fiat isn't as durable as you think it is and it isn't a stand-in for solvency. That being said, here’s how I see theory: neg probably gets conditional worlds, PICs are probably abusive, aff’s are probably topical and education is probably more important than fairness because debate is an educational space. These aren’t fixed metrics but it’s on you to prove the opposite.

K/K affs: I love a good k and am open to anything but framing and link work are key to my ballot. In other words, don’t be lazy with a generic link and lame impact card. I’ll be bored and so so sad. Don't make me sad. I really love a soft-left aff if it's done right in-round. In k aff v. T rounds, I won't lie I am so easily won over by creative TVA's. If your k/k aff is high theory please do a little more explanation and analysis than usual (I don't want lengthy overviews but I want line by line explanations of how the arguments interact) just to help my understanding but for the most part, I should be fine. In any case FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK :)

CP/DAs: Do what you want here but don’t run one-liner CPs just to boost the off number - it’s annoying to flow. I would absolutely love for a CP debate not to degenerate into condo but I'll vote on it if forced. DAs, I have a really hard time buying weak generic links that lead to existential impacts with brink scenarios from 2021 so be mindful of the DA debate.For the IP topic, if the aff seems unrealistic and overreaches realistic USFG political action it probably does. In this case, I would love a good CP + DA debate demonstrating a team's argumentative TECHNIQUE.

Impact stuffs: Diversify your impacts and IMPACT CALC IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MY BALLOT

Good judge instruction will win you my ballot.

John Shackelford

Independent: Able2Shine, Park City High School, Rowland Hall, The Harker School

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

About me:

swideckimichael1@gmail.com (include on email chain please)

8 years and counting policy debate experience. Current University of Kansas Graduate Assistant Coach.

Skip the following section if you are a college debater.

High School specific thoughts for your pref sheets:
1. Yes Speed
2. Yes theory
3. Yes K's (Aff and Neg)
4. Yes evidence sharing
5. Yes off-time roadmaps
6. No grace periods (we have time limits for a reason)
6. No judge intervention
7. Tech over Truth (unless in extreme circumstances as outlined below in point 1)

Some thoughts and useful insights for all debaters (an ever growing list):

1. Familiar with mostly all types of argumentation, I'm down with reading whatever argument suits you, just defend it well. There are very few args I will not vote on. If you say racism/sexism/transphobia/ableism are good you will lose. Everything else is up for debate. I am particularly partial to clever impact turns that catch opponents off guard.

2. I'm becoming increasingly familiar with K literature, I debated as a flex K debater my senior year of college reading args about Queerness and Feminism. Although I assume I'll understand what you are talking about, you should probably not trust me. Thus, if you are going to be relying on some super niche K terms (looking at you Baudrillard teams), I would appreciate a well explained extension just to ensure we are all on the same page in subsequent speeches. I do my best to keep up, but there will always be something that I didn't have time to learn.

3. I like clever counterplans that use the aff against itself (within reason of course, I'm not afraid to vote on theory so be careful with your "creativity"), unless you have really good evidence, I'm not likely to vote on generic CP's that copy and paste the plan text from every round. If the CP is unique to the aff or a small section of affs, that's ideal.

4. 2AC addons are underrated. The neg gets to be flexible and the aff should choose to be as well.

5. Nothing in your speeches should go unjustified, every piece of evidence and every analytic you forward needs to exist for a strategic reason. Chess players (who want to win) don't just move random pieces. Everything is purposeful, strategic, and thoughtful. Your speeches are a piece of art and you should treat them with that respect!

6. Cross-ex is a speech, give it well.

7. Be kind, prep well, debate smart, have fun, good luck.

Former Policy debater/National Qualifier (JHS 2000-2003) and parent of sophomore debater at Alta High.

For email chains: lksylvia@gmail.com

Policy: I spent the majority of my time competing in policy debate. I am comfortable with any type of debate but prefer a more traditional round and preferred a policy maker framework when I debated myself. Advantages/disadvantages, solvency, and politics are all things I like to hear in a round--how does the plan work/not work in the real world?

If you are using more progressive arguments (kritikal affs/kritiks, etc) go for depth over breadth. I think a judge should adapt to the round presented to them, and I will do my best to evaluate the issues that are explained well in the rebuttals.

My e-mail: LEILATL1029@gmail.com

Hey! I did policy debate all throughout high school. It's been around five years since I last debated, so I'm not as familiar with the technicalities as I used to be. If you don't think I'll understand something, make sure to explain it and try to avoid spewing your analytics if you can (Clarity > Speed). I also may not be familiar with super specific topic evidence. I really enjoy political theory (realism, liberalism, constructivism, etc.) so if you’re fond of these arguments feel free to run/discuss them.

POLICY:

K's: I'm ok with K's and have debated with them in the past. I'm familiar with most of the common K's, but I'd like if you'd provide really in-depth explanation of the link story and the way the alt functions. Overviews are helpful as the debate goes on. If you're running an uncommon K, please don't assume I'll understand everything.

K aff vs FW: I enjoy a good FW debate. Explain the iL's to your arguments and how they relate to the bigger picture.

CP's: CP's are cool, make sure you have a NB. Spend time on the perm, but I'll also buy that perms are tests of competition if the aff's argument is unwarranted and generic.

DA's: Specific links are preferred, incredibly long internal link chains are less likely to sway me. Obviously I'll still vote for the DA if you're winning on the flow. Again, spend time on link analysis in the block. Explain your link turns/! turns. I tend to like politics DA's.

T: I was never super fond of T, but I understand the importance of specific violations. If you have a well thought out T shell that's specific, go for it. Education > fairness voters.

I think impact calc is really important!! I won't look at unhighlighted evidence unless you ask me to!! Have fun!!!

Feel free to ask me any other questions in round!!

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have very little experience with public forum beyond the basic mechanics of it. I try to extend my policy knowledge to PF, but if there's something super specific to PF that you think I won't know please explain it!

I'd also appreciate if you'd time yourselves etc (and I might steal some flow paper from you :) ).

Again, ask me any questions you have in round.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Rowland Hall Assistant Coach (2022-Now).

Please include me on the email chain. If I am your judge it means we are at an online tournament because I currently do not reside in the United States. SPEAK CLEARLY! Online debate is not new and we should all know what is required of us. I will have my camera on during all speeches, if it is off please check and make sure I am present.

I am literate on the IPR topic, I taught at debate camp this previous summer, but over-explaining complicated topics or plans never hurt anyone.

I have very little predispositions about debate, do what you do best and I will work hard to fairly adjudicate your round. If you have any specific questions for me, please ask before the debate.

Argument thoughts:

Do NOT read death good.

I have a high threshold for condo bad, BUT I can be convinced it is egregious if it is.

Fairness is an impact.

No ad homs, out-of-round fights, or incriminating screenshots. I am NOT tabroom and if this is brought up in my debate I will refuse to adjudicate it and contact the appropriate tournament officials. Please remember, judges cannot evaluate what occurs beyond their purview. It doesn't mean you should not tell people if you are having problems with a fellow debater, coach, or judge, just don't do it in a debate round.

Judge(s) who I seek to emulate: Mike Shackelford.

4 years of circuit policy in high school where I was somewhat competitive my junior and senior year. Currently in my 2nd year of college debate doing policy and card debate.

Ethanwall2003@gmail.com

1) Right before the round? Read this: To quote Miles Gray: "Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team." Given that, I don't include many thoughts about specific arguments in my paradigm because I really don't care what you read in round.

2) Procedural /meta stuff:

- I will not read along with the doc as you give your speech. If you want me to know how awesome your evidence is, you need to do it justice. If there is a card I am perplexed by, I may read it during prep time or cx.

- Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak before that minute. A huge pet peeve of mine are teams that are entirely absent until moments before the round.

- Time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting.

- I flow straight down, on paper, and by ear. I appreciate and reward strong communication habits.

- I am indifferent towards content and will evaluate nearly any argument. Death good? Whatever. Coinflip? Okay. Impact turns for each flow? Why not. I however, reserve the right to draw that line on an ad-hoc basis. If you wouldn't say it in a room with a teacher, or member of school administration, definitely don't say it in front of me.

- I believe tech over truth supports objective evaluation of debate rounds, but a fundamental aspect of human communication is that it is not objective. Your performance is as central to the game as the flow. It also doesn't make sense to me to regard truth and ignore tech because to even say truth > tech typically means there will be an answer via tech.

3) How do I decide debate rounds?

It is important to me that students know I will work hard to pay close attention to and adjudicate the debates I watch.

I will look at my flow

1 - I will always use the path of least intervention. I find that each debate has a few key questions that typically determine the direction of the round. If one of those key questions is entirely conceded and there are no cross applications that sufficiently answer it (or if those cross applications happen too late) I will usually vote against the team that has technically conceded important portions of the debate given that the debater has told me why that concession should warrant a ballot. Please minimize intervention as much as possible by writing my ballot for me(tying it all together + using argument resolution + maintaining warrant explanation)

I will look at my flow

2 - I will isolate those key issues of the debate and cross examine myself about how they happened in the debate. (what abouts, is this new, are there answers to answers unanswered, etc) In an ideal world, most of the thinking is done by you, telling me how to think about it. If you want to leave it up to me to think about it, be my guest.

Then I will look at my flow

3 - I will read evidence on those key issues to see how the evidence supports the answers.

I will look at my flow again

4 - I will pause to fill in speaker points.

I will look at my flow some more

5- RFD (unless specified by the tournament I should not)

6 - QnA;

4) Speaker points guide

- I tailor the points I give out to the tournament I am judging. Those points are a reflection on strategic awareness, strategy, being smart, and being a strong speaker.

- CX is my favorite speech in debate, unfortunately, it's usually the one I find most disappointing. Sometimes less is more.

- Please dont call me "Judge"

- If your debate is unorganized and hard to flow I am 1: not listening and 2: not giving out high speaks

- I love debate! I smile, I nod, I shake my head. My eyebrows wiggle. This is not necessarily an indication of winning or losing the round/any particular argument, I'm just vibing. If you make me laugh, bonus speaks for you!

If you are antagonistic to your opponents, I am going to give you a 20. Full stop. I am not cool with being rude to opponents. By all means, be witty, sarcastic, sassy, humorous, I like that stuff. Personal attacks are uncool. This is a tight-knit community, and we all need to treat it that way.

Notes for LD and PF debaters.

I am going to judge these debates like I judge policy debates. If there are a clash of styles please adapt to each other to keep my flow neat and tidy.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

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

For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff

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

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

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

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

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

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

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

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

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

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

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

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

4 year policy debater for Liberty University, NDT Qualifier

Current HS Debate coach at Intermountain Christian School

Email chain: ryanwittstock@gmail.com

Things in order of what you're looking for:

Spreading - do it. Go quick, make good arguments and be efficient. If you can't spread without being incomprehensible I will say "clear" during your speech. Slow down if that happens.

My goal is to judge from the flow - everything here is pretty basic but make smart arguments and debate from the flow and you can win in most circumstances

Tech over truth - don't drop arguments even if they are bad. If they are bad, they should be easy to beat.

Condo: I lean to it being good but can be convinced

Theory (besides condo): I lean towards it being a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but can be convinced

Ks: I'm fine with them, but I was not a K debater. Of course I debated against them all the time so I am familiar, but if your theory of power is non-traditional and your impacts are something that I've maybe never heard before slow down.

Try to avoid a K without an alt, or do something like kick the alt. Most Ks are super non-unique without an alt (obviously if your K is more performative this may not apply).

Non-topical affs/framework: This can be a really good debate but normally ends up being bad. Interact with arguments on the flow to win. Fairness might be an impact but normally education is a better impact. I'm not very sympathetic to the "get your education in other rounds" argument.

Cards are important to me. If the debate is good and close it can come down to the cards. I don't like when taglines are longer than cards, that probably means you're lying.

Neg split: New flows in the 2NC are ok (CPs are a little iffy), but don't do new flows in the 1NR. CX over new flows is important.

I think impact turns are great - go for your goofy scenarios if you want

She/her

CX

I will vote on topicality if it is argued effectively.

Open to K debates.

Case debate is good--solvency is key.

I love DAs. DAs should have a solid link you prove/defend. Will vote on big impacts and case turns.

CPs are great, especially turns with net benefits.

I like theory debates.

Will essentially vote on anything if the argument is good. Open to any kind of argument/ideas/theory. Be creative!

I will be flowing--whoever wins the flow wins. I don't vote on speaks.

I currently work as a research assistant to a legal scholar. I have helped write laws. I am very familiar with legal writing and the lawmaking process. With that being said, I care that your plan is good and could be translated into an actual policy.

LD

Two of my classmates from high school won NSDA Nationals during my time on the circuit-I am somewhat familiar with national circuit LD.

I will judge as I do a policy round.

I understand there is a value and a value criterion you use to defend your value-argue it well and I'd like to see lots of clash and argument between opponents' value and VC.

Open to Ks, CPs, or anything theoretical is fair game.

PF

Argue well. I will judge with policy-minded thinking.