Hello! I am a current sophomore at Columbia University, who did Public Forum debate in high school. In the round, I will largely weigh arguments as you present them to me. I can listen very quickly, so speed is not an issue for me, but you shouldn't try to jam too much into your time as to weigh down your argument. I see LD debate as a communication event, so you should be listening to each other and responding to your opponent's actual arguments. I put strong value on a well-structured and well-supported case. Also important is how well the debater supports and defends their Valueand Value Criteria, as if you give it to me you should stick to it. Give a good philosophical debate and have fun!

Hi guys, I am a PF debater.

Here's my email for an email chain: roushu.chuang@gmail.com

PF Specific:

-Please don't spread. If I can't understand your argument, I will not vote for you.

-Please don't bring up any new argument in second summary or final focus.

- Weighing is really important! But do comparative analysis aka don't fake weigh, i.e. "we outweigh because of scope and thus we should win". Make sure to carry through with comparative analysis of both sides.

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

note for UKSO/online tournaments: go like 70-80% speed for me; my audio quality is pretty good but has issues sometimes

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

general stuff:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

misc stuff:

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

if you choose to read eval after the 1ac/1nc, i will give you bad speaks if you don't word the argument in a manner such as 'evaluate all arguments except this one after [x speech]' so as to make it possible for me to evaluate it.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine content but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks.)

drop ur spotify and i'll adjust your speaks by somewhere between -1 and 1 based on how much i like your music taste

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

you get 5 strikes to use the correct pronouns for me. every time you get them wrong, i will give you -1 speaks. on the 6th strike I will drop you or do whatever I am allowed to do that is closest.

notes on 30 speaks theory:

I will evaluate 30 speaks theory under 3 conditions:

1) you extend the argument throughout every speech that i evaluate

2) you win the round

3) you do something that warrants me giving you 30 speaks; ie, read a carded fun fact about niceville or destin, being funny, giving me an energy drink

if your opponent reads 30 speaks theory, I will give you 30 speaks under 4 conditions:

1) you extend the argument throughout every speech that i evaluate

2) you win the round

3) you contest your opponent's 30 speaks argument; no, contestation is not "give us both 30s"/"give the winner a 30 and the loser a 29.9"

4) you read a counter-fact about niceville or destin/ something else that warrants giving you 30 speaks

*fun facts MUST be carded and read in a speech for me to evaluate them.

k/performance:

i almost exclusively read kritiks rooted in identity literature, so i'm best at evaluating this debate. non-identity ks are also cool

lbl > overviews w/ a ton of embedded clash; i have become increasingly bored and frankly annoyed by debaters who are incapable of doing lbl work or weighing. just a note.

for the t-fw debate, counterinterps are cool and so are turns. also carded tvas are way more convincing

theory:

no theory is friv but there are some norms that are way less intuitive for me. that being said i'll still evaluate them if you're winning the theory debate

weigh between standards within the context of the round and u will prob like the rfd more

tell me why theory uplayers so that i can vote on it

trix:

implicate things on the flow and clean things up if they're messy. arguments need to have warrants lol

LARP(policy) and lay:

didn't read much of this, but i'll be fine evaluating it as long as you do the work for me

i never had much fun with lay debate but if thats your jam go for it

be nice to novices & lay debaters at circ tournaments for the first time

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

New Trier '23

call me sam, not judge

please add me to the email chain - samgdebate@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff

Tech >>>> truth - I am down for whatever. The only exceptions to this are callouts, hateful arguments, or death good.

be clear!! I am not the world’s greatest flow, so please prioritize in-depth argumentation over shotgunning a bunch of misc arguments.

I won’t read cards unless specifically directed to by debaters or if it is essential to resolve a debate - even then, I will not read unhighlighted portions of cards unless a rehighlight is extended

I have very little topic knowledge, so please avoid jargon and explain topic-specific examples

T

Give an alternative to plan text in a vacuum

interpretations must be explicitly extended in every speech

CPs

I default to judge kick unless told not to - these debates need to begin in the 1AR

DAs

even if it’s kind of silly, 1ARs need to respond to turns case

K v Policy

I’m familiar with Pess, Set Col, Cap, Death Cult, and Security - anything else requires significantly more explanation

I’ll probably always start off with framework when writing my ballot in these rounds, so teams need to be explicit about what I weigh if they win their interp - this explanation should preferably begin in the 2AC and 2NC

If you want an argument to be applied to framework, that needs to be explicit

Subjectivity shift defense should go beyond the generic list of alt causes (also applies to T-USFG)

T v K

I have no preference for the offense either team decides to go for in these sorts of rounds - I generally think that fairness is an impact but can be persuaded otherwise

please cut the long overviews

If i have no idea what your AFF does after the 2AR, i’m voting on presumption

K v K

I would feel much more comfortable adjudicating a T debate

clarity is super important here, I will feel much more confident in my decision if everyone slows down and defaults to more explanation - keep things super organized, and i should be fine

Theory

Unless theory is dropped (and it's on a flow that's extended into the 2NR), condo is probably the only reason to reject the team - that said please don’t go for condo unless absolutely necessary - condo debates make me want to throw up

I won’t vote on condo in novice debates

Absent an add-on, I think 2NC CPs are indefensible

Misc Things

saying "oops" in a speech = -0.1 speaks

please don't like yell your speeches - idk why people think being loud equates to increased ethos

My pronouns are He/Him. I’m going into my second year of college and I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school

My email is zachary78922@gmail.com

My paradigm is similar to those of Micah Sheinberg and Daniel Luo

Overall Things:

I think compared to other judges I am mathematically minded. Take that as you will.

I will always vote on an argument and never on a general feeling.

Also, I know nothing about the 2024-2025 topic and have not judged a policy debate for the entire past year.

Other things:

Tech>Truth

But, I will not vote on your 'dropped' 4 second aspec shell hidden within your topicality block unless your extension of it goes conceded as well.

I should be able to understand what you are saying.

I default to judge kick including your aff plan, your perm, and your cp/alt.

I don't understand the point of disad turns the case arguments when the disad has a super low risk against a soft left aff with a high risk.

You should explain not only how to weigh impacts and why your impacts outweigh in your specific model.

Speaker points are reflective of your strength of arguments and the clarity of your voice.

I am a student at Columbia University and at Trinity College Dublin. My debate experience is primarily with parliamentary formats, having competed at EUDC and judged at WUDC numerous times. I prefer speakers that speak at more perceivable speeds, give clear signposting, and present interesting and unique arguments. Assume I have no background knowledge of topics beyond that of the average intelligent voter.

Email: tk2934@columbia.edu

Pronouns: he/they

some important views on debate:

tomato---------------------------------------x---------potato

also, put me on the chain please: liconnor21@gmail.com

Hello!
I'm a sophomore at Columbia University. I did policy debate for four years in high school.

Email: ll3744@columbia.edu

Policy-

I prefer policy stuff over k's. If the k is well flushed out, I will still vote on it.

I don't mind theory as long as it's thoroughly explained to me why it should be a voting issue.

I love policy affs, multiple cps, and multiple das. I usually lean neg on condo, so feel free using contradicting off cases.

Always tech over truth.

PF/Parli-

No real preferences. As long as you are able to convince me that your impacts outweigh, you should be fine. (FW is really important, if you don't respond to your opponent's framework, I will take it as law).

Play nice. Just have fun :)

for pf camp:

 - i did 2 years of pf and 2 years of ld

please WEIGH

2nd rebuttal should frontline everything

im ok with any type of argument that's not racist, sexist, etc. (don't say racism is good) - but most pf debaters don't run k's, theory, etc. properly so if you can't please don't :)

im ok with speed but you should be clear. i will yell clear twice and then speaks will tank - if i cant catch anything, then that's self-inflicted.

email me if you have any questions: lirose2022@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Miles. I did LD in HS (BTW c/o2022) and now sorta-coach PF in NYC. I study Philosophy and Intellectual History at Columbia (sorta pretentious); LDers, that does mean I probably will be pretty familiar with your frameworks...beware. Please don't assume I'm too familiar with the current resolutions, bc I'm not.

If you have any q's email me at miles.udwin@gmail.com :)

LD: I'm most familiar with trad LD, but you can debate however you want (though Iprobably won't vote on a K). I'm a pretty standard flow judge: win the flow and you'll win the round. That said, please do the impact calc for me, I hate having to do any weighing or extentions myself (I actually think it's kinda unfair if I do have to). I'm ok with speed, just know that I am off caffein rn and might fall asleep (if you do speed, speech dox are greatly appreciated).

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

Hey! I'm Sebastian - he/him

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (All of these have been taken from Katherine Shi):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round - if you make an independent voter that is not well warranted please do not collapse to it. It is fine strategically to have that argument, but I tend to err on the side of truth when it comes to dropping someone for conduct that is racist, homophobic, sexist - it is not a good strategic out if it isn't well warranted and is not conceded

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

he/him, freshman at Columbia, debated 4 yrs at Westminster

add me to the chain: brandonyao21@gmail.com

T/L

Please do line by line, flow, and answer arguments in the order presented

Clarity, judge instruction, and not being mean are good

You should probably also do disclosure

Anything below can be reversed if one side is more technically proficient than the other. I will try to intervene as little as possible and remove my opinions from the round as much as possible. Unfortunately, no judge is a blank slate and I try to make my argumentative proclivities as transparent as possible.

If you have any other questions about things that aren't covered here, feel free to ask :)

K stuff

On the Neg

---I don't care what the substance of your argument is, all I care about is that you do line by line and explain how the K interacts with the Aff.

---I'm not going to list literature bases I'm familiar with because that shouldn't change how much you explain stuff.

---I will probably be more likely to vote for a strategy that centers on the alt/links turning the case than a "you link you lose" approach, but the second is possible if there's a big asymmetry in how the debate plays out.

---Framework, I try to resolve this first because it frequently determines how the rest of the debate is evaluated so I will never say "framework was a wash" unless neither team explains what their interpretation means. I don't really have any revolutionary thoughts here. However, I do think if the neg is trying to go for a you link, you lose/don't weigh the plan framework, there needs to be offense other than "caring about rhetoric is good". I've never heard a great reason that an Aff middle ground interpretation along the lines of "reps can be a basis for making the alt competitive but you should still weigh the case" doesn't solve this. Offense along the lines of "policymaking/fiat bad", or really good cards establishing a tradeoff between analyzing policy outcomes and analyzing rhetoric both seem fine.

---Framework for the Aff, the fastest way to lose a framework debate in front of me is to drop a series of the defensive arguments at the bottom of any framework 2nc/1nr.

---Specific impact explanation/how the K interacts with the case is also vital. Saying the word "militarism" or an analogy to the iraq war aren't impacts.

---Going to be honest, in a debate setting, trying to convince me utilitarianism is bad might be an uphill battle given I haven't heard any great alternative ethical frameworks that don't rely on utilitarian justifications. That’s not to say "extinction outweighs" is unbeatable in front of me, i just think I'll be persuaded better by other approaches to mitigating the Affs extinction impact including: answering the case, a plan exclusive framework interpretation, turns case arguments, having your own extinction impact, some sort of risk analysis argument (predictions fail, conjunctive fallacy etc.) a root cause claim (securitization makes threats inevitable etc.).

On the Aff

---The 2AR I am most likely to vote on has a counter interp that defines words in the resolution in an attempt to solve some neg offense (doesn't necessarily mean traditional definitions) or at the very least, a clear vision of what the topic looks like. Establishing a role for the neg beyond "you can read baudrillard" will help you a lot. Fairness is an impact (if the neg takes the time to explain why), clash might be a better one though.

Policy stuff

I care about evidence quality but only insofar as its debated out, i.e If the neg's politics uniqueness cards are far better than the Aff's but only the Aff is doing evidence comparison/spin, I'll probably end up Aff.

Absolute defense/presumption is a thing.

I'll go either way on judge-kick.

I think predictable limits matter a lot and that unpredictable but limiting interpretations don't solve anything. I can be convinced that small differences in card quality/predictability are outweighed by a big limits DA though.

The neg probably needs a counter interpretation in plan text in a vacuum debates.

theory predispositions (none of these are strongly held).

---I find the argument that competition determines legitimacy fairly persuasive. It seems to me that going for theory while conceding the CP competes is analogous to ASPEC or going for T without reading any definitions of words in the resolution.

---For process cps, there is a big difference between CPs that solve by causing the Aff via follow on, and CPs that fiat the plan but said action is conditioned on X. I.e a CP that has Mexico recommend the plan but doesn't fiat anything else is way more competitive/legitimate than a CP that fiats the plan if Mexico agrees.

---Condo debates---I think that debates where the Aff defends 2 condo and the neg defends 3 are kinda silly. The neg should defend conditionality and the Aff should defend dispositionality, unconditionality et cetera.

---Very ambivalent about everything else, ill go either way on condo, process cps, international fiat etc.