Put me on the email chain chodgson8797@bths.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I did policy debate for 3 years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, LD, speech, and Parli rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit not the biggest fan). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former). Hint: I'm black.

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds. I mayyyy not be the judge for afro/asian -futurism especially if it's off planet, maybe it's just the rounds I've judged but I have issues resolving the alt. I like case debate, you can win without it but I've found it to be the core of the activity.

Not So Recent Pet Peeves:

T needs an impact ( a voter). Standards and voters are not the same thing. Fairness is a standard and one I don't particularly care about especially without an impact/voter. Education because its the purpose of debate (this is weak but I can vote on something), fairness because they're unfair ... fairness because the world is unfair ... (what am I voting for if you get here and say "so people want to debate" thats weak but now I have something to vote on. Unfortunately if I have to vote on fairness because the aff team drops the ball so hard it meets the Earth's core I will (to K Affs ... y'all do this way too much).

If I don't know what the aff is at the end of the round I'm probably voting neg on presumption (unless they run cp/alts in the 2nr and idk with they do in which case presumption flips aff), please have your story straight (k-affs if you tell me your aff world starts in reading the 1AC and then your partner says it starts with the ballot and I already don't know what the aff world lookalike other than what it somehow doesn't look like... good luck.)

I really despise the asian afropess aff ... do with that what you will. If I have to vote it up I will but I think answers against it are abundant and apparent.

I don't like new 2nc flows (outside of theory), I tend to go aff when it comes to throwing them out as abuse and/or giving them less weight.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Hi debaters! I’m a parent judge, which means I value clear, logical arguments presented in an easy-to-follow manner. I don’t have a deep background in debate jargon or theory, so avoid overly technical arguments and prioritize explaining your points clearly.

Here’s what I look for:

1. Clarity & Persuasion – Speak clearly and make sure I can follow your reasoning. The more understandable your arguments, the more persuasive they are.

2. Evidence & Logic – I appreciate strong reasoning supported by real-world examples or clear logic.

3. Respect & Decorum – Be polite and engage with your opponent’s arguments thoughtfully. Debating is about convincing, not overpowering.

If I don’t understand an argument, I can’t vote on it. Make sure to weigh impacts and explain why your side should win. Looking forward to a great round—good luck!

I am a relatively new judge.

email: colewogan@gmail.com add me to email chain

Graduated HS in 2021, 4 years of poli experience, 2 years of light parli experience .

Parli Paradigm:

Do comparative analysis. Parli debates are won and lost not based on the individual strengths of y'alls' arguments, they are won and lost based on how well you can convince me that for XY or Z reason your argument outweighs, modifies, or what have you the opponents argument. Points of information are reasonable, just don't abuse them. Same goes for responding to POIs -- I tend to dock speaks if you never answer any POIs; it's bad optics. Points of order can be a creative and fun way to win the round. Don't be afraid to make them.

Parli K debate: I will evaluate these rounds fairly, but the link chain needs to be solid for me to weigh the K, especially considering most Parli K teams have blocks that they apply regardless of the topic. That's not to say that there aren't specific links, you just have to apply your arguments to the topic, don't expect me to do it for you. Will vote either way on FW.

Policy Paradigm:

4 year 2a who mixed between policy (typically soft left) affs and k affs. Will give all args the light of day of course, but it's probably important for me to note that I am far more familiar with K-stuff and theory, so if you are going for traditional policy args like a DA + CP articulate the link chain VERY clearly, with specific links to their aff, not just [generic politics link] [generic extinction impact].

K debate:

Obligatory try to mitigate the overview as much as possible. I get it, your overview is the most gorgeously written diatribe you've ever written, but it probably isn't all that applicable, or, if it is, can be split up throughout the line by line. I'm not opposed to an overview, in fact in a lot of ways I think it's very important to have, but if it's going longer than 1min, you're probably overdoing it.

Don't assume I know the critical theory you're reading from -- I might have been familiar with this stuff in the past, but my memory isn't all that great, so err on the side of overexplaining. Link turns as a K-debater are your best friend, and a good one can go a loooong way.

For K-affs, I would say I am solidly middle of the road on the FW question, so if you're a policy team absolutely go for it, and if at all possible a TVA is pretty helpful IMO. I like good FW debates, the generic our specific aff education versus generic limits setting is quite trite.

Other:

I highly encourage you to go for theory (especially T or ASPEC) , or at the very least extend it past the 1nr - in my experience most teams don't know what they're doing and will just read and re-read their 2ac theory blocks.

Also, extend case in the block lmao.