I am a lay judge but keep doing what you have been doing all year. Make sure we converse respectfully and professionally throughout and make sure we rebuff the other team's arguments while providing further and relevant support of our own. Good luck!

Hey, I'm Ananya (she/her/hers)! I've been doing LD for a a year now and did PF for about 4 years before that. I'm currently a high school senior.

If you are sharing evidence or disclosing cases, please send it to my email as well (ananya.anand44@gmail.com).

Here are a few things (listed in no particular order):

• Don't spread
• Please be nice to your opponent (no bullying). Don't interrupt them during cross.
• Please time your own speeches and prep time. Don't exploit this as I will also be timing.
• Off-time roadmaps are greatly appreciated
• Please weigh impacts! Sooner you weigh, the better. Make sure your weighing is comparative (compare your impacts with your opponent's impacts—answer the question: why do yours outweigh/why should I prioritize your impacts?)
• Please sign post and go over the flow in order (don't jump around/go back-and-forth; if you start with AFF, go over everything before moving onto NEG and vice versa).
• If you're going to collapse, do it sooner than later.
• I'm okay with grouping arguments!
• I don't consider dropped arguments or new arguments brought up in the last speeches
• Do not extend through ink. Respond to the arguments your opponent makes (don't pretend they were never made)
• Please don't post-round. It wastes everyone's time.

If you make any arguments that are racist, sexist, insensitive, etc, the ballot immediately goes to your opponent.

Good luck and have fun! If you have questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

TLDR: High school debater with experience in Var Parli and PF, good with most speeds just not EXTREME spreading, will flow any argument, I'll take a T debate, not too comfortable with K debates but I will try my best, tabula rasa

I'm Sweekrit, a senior in high school! I've done debate since like...4th grade, and I'm very excited to judge y'all.

Case: I give each argument to one team or another based on how clean the links and impacts are. This includes turns as well. I provide the win to the team that tells me why their argument matters more than the opponents. PLEASE weigh your impacts and terminalize them, I do not like to have to do the job myself. I vote on the easiest path to the ballot. One thing to note: I will not simply award you a contention if I do not see a clean link chain - if you are weighing an argument that has been completely taken out, you're wasting your time. Strengthen the link and then tell me why it matters.

If you effectively use weighing arguments (probability over magnitude, etc) from the first speech, it makes giving you the ballot extremely easy.

Defaults: K > T > Case, which I think it standard, but if you can convince me otherwise it is what it is (after all, that is the point of debate). Again, weigh to show me why it matters.

Theory: I don't LOVE theory, but I think a good theory debate is fun. Keyword is good. I do not like frivolous Ts, and I don't particularly like using Ts (especially friv Ts) against less experienced or lower resourced teams simply to win a debate. If both teams are experienced, great! Go for it! But the purpose of a T is to point out a breaking in the "rules" of debate - do not diminish its value. Make sure to post the text of the interp in chat as you read it.

Kritik: I don't read Kritiks and I don't like hitting Kritiks. I know the structure and have a general idea of most common Ks, but they need to be extremely well explained and I have a really high threshold for them. I'm extremely sympathetic to theory arguments if you run Ks on less experienced teams just for the win. If its not clear, I would not recommend running a K with me as your judge - I'm sure it's a great strategy, I just don't have the level of experience you're looking for in a K debate.

Structure: Do whatever, but signpost. Neg on presumption is fine as long as you justify it well and have a clean path to the ballot. Again, everything is dependent on the weigh and how the arguments interact with each other.

Speaks: I will start at 27 as a default and go higher or lower.

Disclosure: I will disclose if the tournament allows it.

Content Warnings: Please read them. If I am flustered I cannot flow your arguments well.

Accessibility: If there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible to you, please let me know verbally or over email. I try to make debate as inclusive of a space at possible.

Contact Info: Email is sweekrit.bhatnagar@gmail.com, Insta is @sweekritbhatnagar and Messenger is Sweekrit Bhatnagar (should be a red cartoony picture of a brown boy). If you need to message me my number is 5106506420.

Thanks!

I usually vote in a stock-issues paradigm, but I am open to alternative paradigms if the debate goes there. I like impact calculus in closing speeches. I do not like when debaters are rude to each other; please always be kind and respectful.

Please use Speechdrop, but if you must, my email is enloepddebate@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Phil. I debated LD for William G. Enloe High School, graduating in 2024. I got two bids and three bid rounds senior year, qualifying for the TOC. I now attend Johns Hopkins University where I do not debate.

Conflicts: William G. Enloe High School, Teaneck LP, North Allegheny KW

I also coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Statistics (LAST UPDATED 10/15):

Aff winrate: 39.583% (19/48) (Delores Taylor Arthur irrevocably skewed my neg winrate)

Sat 2 out of 14 elim panels

Split 2 out of 4 RR panels

Greatest influences in debate: Vishal Sivamani, Eva Lamberson, Nicholas Ford, Judah Jones, Mabel Rieger, William Trinh, Antonio Arguelles, Hunniya Ahmad, Minh Le, Nikhil Weerakoon

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

I'm not buying into this recent trend of judges walking back their anti-dogmatism and expressing distaste towards any argument that isn't seen in policy debate. I don't care enough about this event to change my mind on what arguments I like or don't like based on the whims of those I'm surrounded with. As a result, all I ask is that you debate well whatever you debate. I truly, truly do not care about what you read.

This goes for everything. I hold a very low amount of dogma for any argument barring offensive ones (you know the deal, racism/sexism/xenophobia/any argument that makes another person in the room uncomfortable). A debate should be in the hands of the debaters and whether you approach the ballot via a fleshed-out knowledgable policy standpoint or a cop-out “cowardice” dropped trick standpoint is none of my business.

I want the best out of you, as a debater. This goes not only for depth of knowledge but also strategic round vision. Ideally, every 2NR in front of me should go for the least covered argument and the 2AR should be pointing out the flaws in the 2NR’s conception of the 1AR. However, if you do that but don’t know what you’re talking about, it makes it much harder for you to win. That’s why depth of knowledge and strategic round vision are both good.

When I give RFDs, I often read the words/arguments of the 2NR/AR back verbatim. If you want me to vote on something, make it clear. Unclear speeches warrant unclear feedback and reasoning.

UPDATE: I can assure you that I am at 100% of my attentiveness and energy before 7pm. If I am judging you after 7pm, PLEASE BE MORE EXPLICIT IN YOUR 2NR/2AR! If I am judging you that late that probably means I've spent the whole day judging. THE LIKELIHOOD OF ME MISSING SOMETHING IF IT IS NOT FLAGGED AND CLEAR IS HIGHER.

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

Speaks!

In-person tournaments: I will give you a speaks boost if you bring me an energy drink.

Credit to Nickford: "The brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks"

Online tournaments: I will grant 30 speaks spikes (since, well, you probably cannot physically bring me an energy drink) provided it has a warrant. Be sure to specify in the event a tournament doesn't allow tied speaks.

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

For more detailed and nuanced takes, here's Eva Lamberson's rant doc. I agree with everything in here, except I like T debates more than they do, I'm not a philosophy major, I don’t flow on paper, and I also disclose speaks (please ask).

If you are still reading, and you still have questions, the answer is probably yes, I will vote on it. Now go prep.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

Hi,

My name is Kulbinder Hans

I have Master's in Mathematics and 7 years teaching experience in a high school as Math Teacher.

Also I have Master's in Nursing and I am a Board certified Nurse Practitioner. Currently I am practicing as Nurse Practitioner in our own private practice from last 5 years. I am also holding Nursing home Administrator license and serving as administrator at Neuro behavioral Skilled Nursing Facility.

I like fast as well as slow talking competitors as long as they can get there points across well. I believe in supporting your argument with adequate statistics and facts. Please be respectful to your opponent.

i'm a pf circuit debater (she/her) with some ld experience. add me to your email chain: al3464@pleasantonusd.net

1) tech>truth

2) extend & weigh for your argument to count, or else i can't flow through. AND PLEASE SIGNPOST!!

3) don't be rude or offensive :p just be nice and have fun

Parent judge.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

I can deal with a bit of speed but Please do not spread and speak clearly.

I enjoy getting an idea of the structure of your argument so I appreciate off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

I'm a former policy debater (1990-94) and competed on the national circuit, but I'm relatively new to LD. I'm also a law professor with a phd in political philosophy.

If there's an email chain, please include me. Email is: micah.schwartzman@gmail.com.

I'm open to pretty much anything in terms of phil, k, policy arguments. But other things equal, I prefer debates that link to the resolution. If you're running philosophical arguments that you don't really understand, I will credit commonsense refutations of them.

I'm open to theory, but I'm less familiar with these positions. You will need to give me clear explanations of them. (But to win on disclosure, you need to prove in-round abuse. I will have little patience for sophisticated debaters running it to take advantage of small or lay teams -- don't do that.)

Not interested in tricks, and I will discount blippy analytics.

Spreading is fine, but several conditions: (1) your spread has to be intelligible (and I'd recommend going 80% when you're online), (2) don't use it to abuse or embarrass lay teams, and (3) you have to slow down through analytic shells and transitions. If your spread isn't clear, I will let you know initially. But if I can't understand you, then I won't flow the arguments. And I usually judge a debate based on my flow (not off the doc).

As your judge, I'm about creating a positive and engaging space for our debates. I appreciate coherence, respectful interactions, and consistency based on values, research, and evidence.

Email: sarithavankayala@gmail.com

I'm a Lay Judge. So, avoid running DA's, counterplans, plans, theory, critics, and other technical arguments. Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention

Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

To ensure that I catch all the most important parts of your case (like the value, value criterion, and each of your contentions), try to slow down and emphasize when you are introducing your framework and each of your contentions. Throughout your entire case, speak clearly.

Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

I like a good cross fire.

Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed but will be used AGAINST you during your rounds.

Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contentions fit the winning framework better than the opponent's contentions.
Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

Hello! I'm Sophia (she/her), senior debate co-captain at the Brearley School.

I've done both PF and LD throughout high school, definitely more familiar with PF though. I'm familiar with theory, K's, etc. but am more comfortable evaluating trad arguments than prog arguments overall. Assume I am not familiar with the topic so please explain terminology clearly! I'm fine with a bit of speed but please don't spread.

Please number your responses and signpost/use offtime roadmaps to make it easier for me to flow your round. Tell me what you want on my flow and keep my flow neat. All arguments I evaluate must be fully warranted & implicated, and must be present in summary + final focus/

Extend arguments you want me to consider in your summary. I highly recommend collapsing to crystallize the round.

Weighing/impact calc is really important, give me clear voters and tell me why you outweigh using specific weighing mechanisms. Tell me what you win on and why. Be comparative in your weighing & metaweigh.

I won't evaluate cross or look at evidence during/after the round - anything that contributes to my decision must be brought up within your speeches. Please show up on time, preflow before the round starts, and time your own speeches.

Add me to the email chain & feel free to email if you have any questions: sophiaswang@gmail.com

Hi, I'm a parent judge. Please don't spread and signpost in your constructives and rebuttals. Don't run Theory unless absolutely necessary.

I am a parent judge. Please don't spread and keep the speed between slow and medium..

I value below points:

Debate is educational and inclusive. Attack the argument not the person. Respect to each other.

Argument needs to be convincing with appropriate supporting evidence such as analytics, quote or common sense.

Logical thinking and clear and precise communication to convey the point.

Time yourself and I will also time for reference. Prefer eye contact.

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions