Congratulations on making it to Nationals! I am a parent judge who also works as a middle school assistant principal and will be judging Policy.

I will evaluate the arguments presented in an unbiased and neutral way. I would like to see debaters who are good advocates for their chosen position and use strong persuasion, speaking that is easily understood, and sound, logical arguments. I also would like to see strong links.

I prefer debaters to use a rate of speed that lends itself to being able to understand what is being said. I will be taking notes and if the debaters choose to speak so rapidly that I can’t write down the arguments, they face the risk I will not understand the intricacies of the arguments nor will I be able to write them down. Also, please tell me where you are going to go on the flow then signpost along the way.

In policy debate I will allow open cross-x, but please do not allow one member of the team to monopolize the questioning period. A teammate can help as long as it doesn’t become a distraction.

Hey guys, I'm a high school debater; I'm familiar with all debate events and'll evaluate anything. Anyway, my paradigm is pretty simple...

Here's my email; I would like to be added to the email chain (if applicable): dbai265872@gmail.com

I will stop flowing if you go over your speech time limit

Tabula Rasa; default ROJ is policy change

Tech>Truth, I will stick to my flow as much as possible

I don't mind speed

DA's and CP's are cool

I will evaluate K's and Theory BUT don't just throw a Kritik at your opponents just to do it and fill time.

Theory arguments must be properly executed for me to evaluate them.

FOR POLICY:

Please give off-time roadmaps.

1AR isn't a constructive.

I won't Judge kick unless specifically told so.

Impact Calculus is good; please do it.

K Debates are fine, as long as they're well organized and structured.

Don't steal prep. If it's dead time, make sure it's clear you're not prepping.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please be professional and respectful. There's no need to be rude or to yell over your opponents; if you're disrespectful, I will dock your points. Most importantly, debate is a game. Be smart, try your best, and have fun.

I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Hello!

Congrats on making it to Nationals.

I have plenty of experience coaching and competing.

I am very big on being respectful. In cross, it needs to be civil it can be heated but you can do that civil and not resort to attitude and personal attack.

My first paradigm is please make sure you are clear in speaking. This means a good rate of speed and articulation. To vote for you I have to be able to understand you.

The other thing that is important to me is debate is about clash, so don't spread! I hate thought of trying to give 100 arguments and then trying to win because judge they only covered 55 of my arguments. Have good solid concise arguments that are thoroughly researched.

I'm not opposed to Ks but you need to make sure it is clear an concise on why you are running it.

I am a parent of a debater. My job as a mortician is one of the many lenses from which I see the world. I will evaluate the arguments presented in the round by making every attempt to be unbiased and neutral. However, I would like to see debaters who are good advocates for their chosen position by using strong persuasion, speaking that is easily understood, and sound, logical arguments.

Congratulations on making it to nationals! I am a tabula rasa judge. I believe that the debaters in the round have an obligation to set out both an affirmative and negative position that might help a policy maker evaluate the round. I’m not opposed to other plans/cases that take a tabula rasa or a stock issues approach, but you must tell me from what perspective I should be evaluating the round (and why) or I will default to a policy maker.

I prefer debaters to use a rate of speed that lends itself to comfortably listening and understand what is being said. If the debaters choose to speak so rapidly that I can’t write down the arguments then they face the risk that not only will I not understand the intricacies of the arguments, but will not be able to write them down.

When using prep time, be respectful of the tournament schedule. Both sides have an established amount of prep time. If there becomes excessive evidence swaps or discussions outside of the CX period then it will affect the team’s speaker points. In policy debate I will allow open cross-x, but please do not allow one member of the team to monopolize the questioning period. I would expect the debaters that are typically, in the order of the round, expected to ask and answers questions be the primary point person in the CX. If a teammate wishes to help they may so long as it doesn’t become a distraction. In PF, during cross-fire I expect courtesy and respect during this questioning period.

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

Hi, I'm Gwendolyn Cole (she/they) I am a senior-year policy debater. I am a 3x national qualifier ( world schools in '23, policy in '24 & '25) I have also placed at state, districts, regionals, and many other in-season tournaments in policy debate. I have multiple years of debate and speech experience across many events (policy, public forum, congressional debate, world schools debate, United States extemp, informative speaking, among others) so I feel pretty well versed in the speech and debate world. Any questions not answered in my paradigm I will happily answer before the round begins.

✿ No, I don't care where you sit or how we disclose or whether or not cross is open or closed

✿ I have no problem with spectators but I do not want them on the email chain/speech drop - if you are really watching the round for educational purposes it is best to train yourself to flow by ear

✿ Email:GwenCole802@gmail.com

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I Evaluate a Policy Debate:

❀ Speed: I'm a policy debater at heart; you're the one competing; you make the call on how fast or slow you want to go. I don't care as long as you are clear—mumbling is not spreading—make sure a document is shared so I can follow. If you are unclear or I can't hear you I'll say clear and stop flowing until I can hear you. Signpost always!

❀ Topicality: I will only vote on T if it's the only thing the negative runs or if they collapse on it in the 2NR . I truly believe that it's impossible to claim to lose ground if you're running any other off-case positions, cases, kritiks, etc. Prove to me you have no ground—collapse on T or don't run it. I won't necessarily vote neg down if they run T with other arguments and off-case positions I just won't evaluate it.

❀ DA's - The more specific the DA link is the more likely I am to buy it; the only time I'm voting solely on a vague link is when it gets dropped. If your uniqueness is two or more years old you shouldn't be running the disadvantage.

❀ CP - Advantage counterplans are my personal favorite but as long as you prove that it's competitive... it's competitive. That being said I will totally buy Perms if the neg is unable to prove competition. I don't necessarily believe that counterplans must be non-topical unless the aff raises that issue and gives me voters on it.

❀ Kritiks- I think K's are really great when run properly. In my eyes that means that you have a sustained framework through the debate—I think it's nearly the biggest piece to a Kritik. Tell me about the theory of power; tell me why it matters to change that. I won't buy alts that aren't material or don't have mindset implications just telling me that the alt is "vote neg" and is verging on gross—it cheapens whatever advocacy or critique you claim to attempt at—tell me why, tell me how that changes the world either in the debate round/sphere or outside of it. Same as DA's more specific links are always better. I have a special place in my heart for Set Col and AfroPess, but feel free to run Baudrillard for all I care.

❀ In Round Behavior Couple of things here that I think need to be noted. First and foremost, I have nothing against a little bit of sass, It is good to be confident in yourself but being rude to your opponent doesn't make you a better debater; disrespect will lose speaker points if it becomes egregious. When it comes to CX, I have no preference for open or closed, but I will say that if your partner has to answer all your questions, I will drop your speaker points. I understand that each individual has their niche, but it does not make you a better debater to not be confident in your own case. Lastly, Bigoted arguments will never win my ballot—you'll lose the round and be left with zero speaks to show for it; don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.

❀ Little Things-

✿ My timer is always better than yours; prep stealing is gross; don't do it; if I think you're prepping, I'll start your prep. I won't make you start prep to disclose your documents, though, dw.

✿ I'm flowing, I'm reading your cards, and I have no issue calling for evidence checks.

✿ The organization helps you win! signpost always, number your case attacks, and make sure I know where you are on the flow

✿ Past the first constructive speeches, clash is more important to me - cards are fine but do the work and engage with the actual debate.

✿ I'm not the one debating; I won't shadow or extend for anyone; do the work and extend your case.

✿ Dropped arguments are true

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I Evaluate a Public Forum Round

❀ Definition Debate: Please make sure there is a clash on this front of the debate—please don't just read your definitions and tell me the opposing team is wrong; tell me why, and tell me how your definition is better.

❀ Clash: Awall of cards is not debating; give me a real clash; tell me why you can or can't support the resolution, give me the impacts of your examples/scenarios.

❀ Organization: Being anorganized team helps you win! Signposting and giving off time road maps are always good ideas.

❀ Prep Time/Speech Time -My phone will always time better than yours - the second the questions start in cross I'm starting time - please save clarity questions for cx itself.

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

How I evaluate a Lincoln‐Douglas debate round

✿ I have never debated an LD round, that being said I am very familiar with framework debate (see policy paradigm above) and fond of FW debate so you should be fine. I stay up to date on the literature and will always work to understand you.

✿ I'm as progressive or traditional as you are debating I don't care

❀ Kritiks - I love them but please see my policy paradigm above, framework is the biggest thing on the K, as are material or mindset alts - "vote neg" without mindset implications is disgusting, especially on advocacy K's.

✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊

HI my names Kyle I debated at Manhattan high school for 2 years and am in my first year of debate at K-state

Policy things

I'm fine with spreading your constructive speeches but I write kinda slow so there is a risk of me not flowing your entire case if you are too fast.

I'm a big fan of k's so feel free to run them

don't love politics disads but I will still vote on them.

give impact calc or I will cry

Email for file sharing - @tyreeeddings@gmail.com

I was a policy debater in high school and I am open to pretty much any argument but anything harmful or disrespectful will not get my ballot. As a judge I will evaluate arguments with tech>truth and that goes for all debates so just because something might be true I won't vote on it unless it is articulated to me that I shouldn't. As for policy I will only vote on things extended throughout the debate so make sure you fully develop all of your arguments.

Good luck have fun.

Hi! I’m a senior in high school, and I’ve done speech and debate in my state (Texas) since middle school. I mostly have done extemp and policy, but I have also done interp. NSDA has given me an opportunity to improve myself, so I’m hoping it’ll do the same thing with you! I’m a tab judge, meaning I’m okay with pretty much whatever you run as long as it is neither unethical or immoral, but more information on each individual event is below.

I LOVE congress. I’m super excited that I’m judging this today, and I only have a few requests. Firstly, keep going! Do you absolute best in the round and don’t give up! Second, I really don’t want to be a presiding officer, so I strongly encourage y’all to run for PO. Congress is a great opportunity for everyone, and I hope to learn from each of you!

Respect is the most important thing to have in a debate round, and not having it has caused many people to rank low. Be respectful and do your best!

I'm Athena (she/her), I am a senior policy debater. I've been doing this for four years, I placed multiple times at regionals, state, and districts, and nationals multiple times as well, so I sorta know what I'm doing⸝⸝✩‧₊˚

.‎

If I'm not judging a policy round you might be cooked, however a monkey could judge PF (if you are an LD debater close your eyes and pray to whatever god you believe in)

.‎

❀ for email chain--athena.gadi@gmail.com

❀ I'm what you call a tech/tab judge (I vote on the flow don't drop anything)

❀ I will disclose my ballot at the end idc lol

.‎

❤︎ Speed- I spread when I debate so I understand going fast to get through your arguments. But istg if you don't drop a doc and you are unintelligible it will be silly (and not in a good way for you).

‎.

❤︎ Topicality- I love topicality and I can see where it can be run in every round. You need to prove abuse or its not an issue. I don't want a 1NC without T voters. NEG, you are not running topicality as a time skew, don't drop it in the 2NR, that's silly.

‎.

❤︎ DAs- Disadvantages are better when they are more specific, thats just true, however I won't discredit a DA just because it has a vague link. If your uniqueness is two years old I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ CPs- I feel like its fair that I tell you I lowkey hate cps. If it's not competitive I'm going to draw hello kitty on the flow. I am not a fan of PICs. I believe in perm theory really heavily.

‎.

❤︎ Ks- I really like Ks, on both AFF and NEG, and I will treat them like any other argument. I am especially well versed in Fem and Set Col, but I am comfortable with Cap, Imperialism, Afro-pess, Poverty, and Orientalism. Explain any k to me properly and I will try to understand it.

‎.

❤︎ Framework- I think FW is absolutely crucial to the round. Don't drop FW that's silly and you will probably lose. If you run a K without FW I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ Theory- If you prove where there has been abuse in round, and why that outweighs, I'll vote on most theory. I am very likely to vote aff on condo. I also believe in disclosure, theres never a reason not to disclose.

‎.

❤︎ Attitude- If you are unnecessarily mean it will make me like you less. I'm six different types of minority so if you are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. you are literally losing my ballot and I will give you non-existent speaks.

‎.

❤︎ Little things:

- Don't gaslight me... I'm like... flowing?

- I don't shadow extend, I flow what comes out of your mouth.

- If you don't number your case attacks I will cry.

- My phone times better than yours don't argue with me.

- Recency is real.

- Past the 1AC/1NC I want to see more clash and engaging warrants than cards.

- Make a hello kitty reference and you get extra speaks.

‎.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣶⣦⣄⠀⢀⣤⡴⠾⠛⠛⢷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣻⢞⣳⢯⣿⣿⡋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡴⠶⠶⠶⣤⣤⣄⡀⢀⣀⣤⣤⠶⠶⠞⣿⡿⣞⡷⣯⣿⣿⣼⣿⣷⣤⣄⡀⠀⣀⣠⣸⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢰⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡿⣽⡽⣻⣿⣽⣿⢿⢯⣟⠿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣟⡿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣾⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣟⣧⢿⣽⣻⣿⡿⣯⣟⢾⣻⡽⣿⣷⣿⣞⣽⣳⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢾⣿⣾⠷⠟⢿⣷⣯⣟⣳⣿⣿⣿⡿⣞⣧⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣴⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⢿⣿⣽⣳⠿⣽⣾⠿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠛⠻⠛⠋⠁⠀⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⣤⡤⠦⠴
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠉⠉⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡶⢶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣿⣤⣤⣀⡀
⢀⣀⣤⣼⣷⡤⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣶⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠉⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠏⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡖⠒⢶⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣾⣁⡀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⡶⠶⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠷⠶⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡿⠉⠉⠙⠛⠒⠀
⠀⠀⠘⠉⠁⠈⠻⣦⣀⣀⡤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⡾⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡾⠿⢿⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⡴⠾⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠛⠶⠶⠦⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⠴⠶⠶⠶⠚⠛⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

I am a long time debate coach from ACORN Community High School in Brooklyn and now principal at MS 50 also in Brooklyn.

I will vote for any argument, as long as it is explained well. I am very open to critical arguments and performance.

I am not impressed with speed and don't love it being used as a spreading strategy. I prefer thoughtful, well researched and well explained arguments.

Please be respectful to opponents at all times. Hateful, racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist language will result in loss of ballot.

Overall, I am a Tabula Rasa judge, run what you are comfortable with. That said, on the current topic, I find it difficult most of the time to vote on Topicality as I feel that it more often than not turns into a time suck that is a wash at the end of the round. I'm familiar with most Kritiks, but if you're going to run a Kritik it needs to be well explained. Weighing is also extremely important to me, and good weighing will help you win my ballot. Overall, I'm good with speed, just make sure to slow down on taglines and important content that you really want me to catch.

Please add me to the email chail: bahouston72@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, so I prefer a slower pace of speech and debating. Spreading will make it difficult for me to follow, so clarity is key. I will vote on stock issues, DAs, and counterplans, but I am not a big fan of Ks. Please crystallize key issues and explain clearly why you should win, especially during the final speeches. I value direct clash and well-structured arguments, but I will not tolerate rude or disrespectful behavior.

Framework

I am open to framework arguments and will adopt yours if it seems more reasonable or persuasive than your opponent's.

Kritiks (Ks)

If you run a K, make sure to build a strong link argument. I value in-round analysis and explanation more than simply reading pre-written blocks.

Counterplans

Avoid running too many counterplans. If you do, I will likely lean toward condo arguments. Ensure you establish a clear net benefit for your competitive counterplan.

Overall Evaluation

I will prioritize the quality of your arguments over quantity. Insightful analysis and thoughtful responses to your opponent’s case will be rewarded the most

Please include me on the email chain.

capa2003_1@yahoo.com

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

I want to hear you speak clearly and with confidence! Spreading is not my favorite to see but you can do it as long as you sign post. Eye contact is important to me and etiquette matters above all else. Be kind and cordial to your opponent(s). Just do your best and have fun :)

My email is: simeonfeng@gmail.com

I'm from the science background so good reasoning and sounding logic to support your case during the debate are the primary quality I'm leaning towards.

Presentation skills: clarity, confidence and fluence are things I value. Spreading is okay but less important to me.

Manners: Be respectful to your opponents. No tolerance to harmful, hateful language / actions.

Good luck!

Having personally participated in various speech / music competitions and drama productions, I can empathize with what it is like to be a contestant and the enormous amount of effort and energy it takes to compete. Also, I know how invaluable these learning experiences are. Congratulations, no matter how you are ranked during the competition, you have already won!

While contestants may have been working on a debate or speech topic for many months, keep in mind that judges are hearing the subject matter for the first time. Present the information in a way that is easy for judges to understand.

Stories are powerful. They help paint pictures of what the world has the potential to look like if positive action is taken.

Know that in my comments I try to plant positive seeds in hopes that even though a contestant may not win a competition, they will gain valuable insight that will serve them well in the future.

Always do your best, find something positive in every situation, keep trying new things, and be kind.

~Rufus King HS Class of 2025

~4 years policy debate experience in WI and Nat Circuit (Double-2s)

~Good with speed(slow on tags tho)

~TABS

~Run whatever- I believe a good debater should not have to significantly judge adapt to win the round, but if that's your thing, more info below

~ABC(Always be clashing)

Arg specific advice:

T:

Aff: If T is read as a time-suck, say "we meet" and/or read the most basic CI, say "lit checks abuse", and move on: I WILL vote on reasonability. If T is not read as a time-suck and you're actually non-topical, that could be a problem for you (If multiple T violations are read I'm open to the idea of an RVI as well)

Neg: Don't read T as a time-suck with 8 other off please, if there's actually an issue with the aff plan I'll heavily favor neg in a T debate, especially if you can show actual rather than just potential abuse (I will vote on extra-T)

DA:

Aff: Take out one or more parts of the DA in the 2AC(I find uniqueness and the internal link chain to be the weakest typically) and explain how case outweighs

Neg: Be smart about your DA's interact with each other and case, and don't be afraid to drop parts of the DA if something else acts as an independent case turn

CP:

Aff: I think most PIC's are pretty cheaty, might want to point that out. Otherwise, one or two well-explained perms is probably your best bet

Neg: Leverage your CP's specific solvency advocate and explain why the perms are probably nonsensical

Case:

Aff: Leverage case throughout the round, I will evaluate it at the same level as a DA or any other arg

Neg: Unless you're reading a one-off K or something its probably best to put something on every advantage, otherwise I'll give the aff all their impacts. Independent case turns that are mishandled can create an easy neg ballot

Impact framing: If you're tired of impact framing being totally ignored and judges just defaulting to util instead, then I'm your judge. If no impact framing is read I will unfortunately have to default to util with equal emphasis on magnitude, probability, and timeframe, but please read impact framing. Impact framing that is conceded/mishandled by your opponents can definitely win you the round, as long as you can access your impacts (both aff and neg)

General Theory Stuff: I'll honestly vote on any theory, depending on the context and how well each team handles the arguments. Potential abuse can be a voter, but in-round abuse is probably better. Debate can be a game, educational activity, and/or shape interactions within the real world. (I probably lean aff on condo too, especially vs 3+ advocacies) This is probably controversial, but on the nat circuit at least, I think that disclosure is probably bad for small schools who don't have multiple assistant coaches to find lit and prep out blocks, so feel free to not disclose if you're a small school hitting like a Kansas team or something.

K stuff:

Post-fiat K's:

Aff: No link/link turn args and perms/showing how the plan facilitates a transition to the Alt is probably your safest move here

Neg: This is my personal favorite arg to run on the neg, so please: explain your links and win root cause

(I'll default to weighing alt vs aff if no other FW interp is read with post-fiat K's btw, I also typically don't think K's need uniqueness if that is helpful for any reason)

Pre-fiat K's:

Aff: Go for no link, working within the system good, and show why the K FW is super abusive

Neg: You know the lit, do be protective of your FW/ROB/ROJ tho

K affs:

Aff: You're running a K aff, you better know what you're doing (I'm definitely not opposed to K affs though)

Neg: Cap K (Or any other K you could read vs a policy Aff) is probably a bad choice: T, case, and any other unique theory violation or K is probably a better strategy

Evidence stuff: Add me to your email chain at cmartincaldwell@gmail.com, (I prefer speech drop or tabroom share, but I'm fine with email chain if those other two aren't working and/or other competitors/judges have objections). Overall, clash>quality of evidence. I'll look at a card if you tell me to, but if you didn't extend warrants that probably won't change my decision. I don't want to incentivize power-tagging, but if you don't point out your opponent's power-tagging, I'll assume what they're saying is accurate to the card.

I oversee the program at my school as head coach. Having said that, I am a pretty traditional judge. Trickery, excessive speed, and jargon usage are not appreciated and could lose you the round. Gain the advantage by demonstrating the coherence of your presentation, the strength of your argument, and the accuracy of your supporting data. I will only reveal if asked to do so by the tournament organizer. I will not provide verbal feedback. The ballot is intended to serve those two purposes.

When assessing you, these are some of the things I look for when judging.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. Learn to judge adaptability if you are accustomed to speeding. You've lost the round if I can't follow your reasoning and comprehend what you're saying.

2. I prefer empirical data; attempting to win an emotional debate will not win you the round.

3. I prefer cases that are well-planned and logical; I want to be able to draw connections between the many points.

4. I'm not as skilled at flowing as someone who judges PFD on a weekly basis, but I can still flow and can tell if you are doing the same.

5. DO NOT BE RUDE. I can handle assertiveness, but it's not appropriate to yell, ridicule opponents, roll your eyes, shake your head, or act in general contempt.

I just finished my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

Policy

-I'm good with pretty much any type of argumentation, as long as you convince me why you win

-I'm good with speed, and I will look at speech docs, but if I can't understand you, I won't flow

-Ask me any specific questions before round if you have them

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Hello, you can call me Mr. Sims, Mr. President or D-Dawg just not my first name. You can call me judge I won’t be mad, just disappointed. I ask that you do not do open CX or Prompt without asking first.

I am very much Tabula Rasa, if you tell me the sky is purple, and have evidence to back it up, without your opponent's, challenging it, I'll buy it. (Key reason persuasion is important) I want to know what the world will look like in the AFFs and NEGs world, why does your world look better than theirs?

T - Topicality/theory is the top voter along with Ks, but I prefer Ts, you can argue any kind of T argument as long as you can defend it, if someone is running an MTBI and you say that isn’t a Basic income, I will vote on it, but keep in mind a good team will be able to defend their side with much more ease

(Disclosure theory is boring)

K - Ks are excellent, you MUST assume I know literally nothing and explain it in a way that will make me believe and want to vote for you. I evaluate these before any case args, so winning the framework debate is crucial to get a K win.

Speed - If I can’t understand you, I can’t and won’t vote for you, I do ask you include me on the Speechdrop/Email chain/NSDA evidence sharing.

Evidence - I am not reading your evidence bit by bit, if your opponent calls you on something I will look then. Power tagging is definitely something that can factor into my decision if it is called.

Fun arguments - I will vote for any kind of argument including extinction good, death good, etc… just use ev to back them.

Extra - Humor is incredibly appreciated, debate should be fun. This is a speaking event so being funny and witty is something that may persuade me heavily, ensure that it remains respectful though.

Davinsims07@gmail.com

***scroll down for my preferred args, the top is mostly round conduct and novice stuff***

Former Manhattan High School Debater, MHS' 24 (Kansas)

Assistant/Novice Coach for Humboldt High (Minnesota)

University of Minnesota' 28 (not debating)

Double majoring political science and statistics, pre-law

sydney.k.vahl@gmail.com

Add me to the speechdrop or email chain

My paradigm is mainly just me ranting about all the things that have annoyed me in debate, don't take it too seriously :) I update this after every tournament I've competed at/judged at

I competed in policy debate and original oration. I nat qualed in OO for both NIETOC and NSDA and I broke octas at NIETOC 2024 placing 33rd :)

I'm not from Minnesota. If I go against certain norms of the state it could have been an accident, but more likely I made a conscious decision to reject an unproductive debate standard in favor of the far superior Kansas style.

I've been told I look and present as mean and scary at times but I promise I'm not. Its just RBF and poor social skills :)

MY NAME IS NOT SYDNEY VAIL!!! Vahl as in rhyming with doll, hall, wall, and ball. Not Vail like in pail. If you say my name within my earshot and you call me Sydney Vail I will be sad :(

Feel free to reach out afterwards to ask me about my ballot or if you need further clarification.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR:

I'm a policy maker and a flow judge within some reason and limitations.

I like real world tangible impacts. I'll weigh structural violence and climate change impacts above pretty much everything else if I am not told how to vote/have to evaluate competing arguments. I cannot picture a world where I will ever buy a total nuke war scenario.

Speed ok, spreading monotone NOT! Condo bad, aff kick bad (mostly novice, jv, and open), K affs/ performance affs NO!!!!

DA yes love!!!!! CP maybe, not more than one and need to see clear net benefit and solvency. Topicality yes within reason and not for time skew. K maybe not? I know gender and race (primarily AAPI) theory very well, anything else is a gamble to run in front of me.

This is the gist of what I will evaluate this round on. It wouldn't hurt you to stop reading from here but if you really want to win my ballot I encourage you to continue down. I can always tell which teams have read my paradigm and which ones have not.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

4 SPEAK 2025:

The second you start spreading is the second I stop flowing! Monotone jumbled words that make no coherent sense hurts debate! I don't care that you have 8 off case positions to get through!!! Crazy idea, lets have have a round with actual substance instead of throwing around a million different arguments in hopes that at least one of them sticks. If you lack the fundamentals to win a round without spreading then maybe its time for some internal reflection.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY RESOLUTION SPECIFIC; 2024-25 TOPIC:

I just wrapped up my first year coaching in Minnesota, so while I do have some knowledge with this resolution, I am not familiar with the Kansas IP debate landscape.

CHINA: I look racially ambiguous at best, and my name on tab is Sydney Vahl, but I am Chinese. Pretty much every debate I’ve judged this season on this topic has been packed with hyperbolic oversimplifications of why I, as the judge, need to fear China. What I rarely see is any real critical analysis explaining why I should. I’m not here to defend China’s domestic or international politics, but I think it’s fair to say the issue is far more nuanced than just "China is bad and brainwashing its citizens". Framing China as a monolithic, threatening "other" isn’t just lazy—it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and feeds into real-world biases that extend far beyond the round. This type of rhetoric mirrors broader narratives contributing to rising anti-Asian sentiment, especially when debaters rely on alarmist impacts like "If China wins the AI race then the world gets nuked and life ceases to exist." These arguments flatten the complexity of China’s political and social dynamics into reductive caricatures, as well as reinforcing a US-centric worldview that dismisses the agency of other nations. I’m not saying you can’t critique China’s policies; I’m saying those critiques need to be thoughtful, grounded, and free of sweeping generalizations. Rhetorical responsibility matters, and debaters who take the time to critically engage with their arguments and avoid harmful framings will always impress me. If you’re going to have a debate about China, lose the sweeping generalizations, avoid outrageous impacts, and take the time to critically analyze your position. The international sector isn’t simple, and your argumentation shouldn’t be either.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY GENERAL:

Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is. If you make your opponents cry and are being consistently a mean and bad person there is no way you will get my vote. I'll give a warning in novice for behavior if it gets bad. For JV, Open, and Varsity I'll stop the round and turn my ballot in as it is no warning, y'all know better than that and if you don't then you don't deserve my vote. Debate is supposed to be a fun and silly little activity, don't ruin it.

***Note: I think there is a stark difference between being an assertive debater and a mean one. The boundary has become muddied over the years and has come to especially hurt fem presenting debaters. While I do expect teams to remain civil, y'all are also competing against each other and the institution of debate rewards confident dynamic competition. Yes, be assertive! Yes, be passionate! But issues arise when we characterize and brush off those who are assertive, passionate, and competitive as simply mean spirted individuals. The 90 or so minutes you spend with your competitors in round is not indicative of their entire personalities. As a former debater, I know it is easy to get lost in split second characterizations because of a particularly heated round. I've been guilty of it myself. Its ok to be frustrated, but recognize your opponents are probably equally frustrated in their own right. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Give your competitors, as well as yourself, grace to grow and improve. At the end of the day, its just a silly little made up debate round.

Speaks: I don't like how speaks are done in Minnesota and I've yet to adapt to the norms so if I accidentally rank you too low that's my bad. In general, speaks aren't really a big thing for me, I think they're just performative. My speaks were always lower in high school because I had to carry the technical debate so I understand its a balancing act.

I debated in Kansas for 3 years in high school, aka in a highly competitive circuit. I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them.

Policy maker

MAJOR NOTE: If I'm making a face at you it's probably because I don't like what you're saying, so don't keep saying it and move on lol. Novices this means you.

Accommodations: If an accommodation within reason is asked for you will make that accommodation. If it "compromises the round" for you or "makes you less competitive" then you aren't a good debater point blank. Not listening to accommodations will lose you the round right away.

Flow: My flow is a big factor in my decision. Tech over truth but not really but also kind of but mostly not probably. I will (most likely) be flowing the round. Don't send me a masterfile, I only want the cards you are reading in round. If I don't know what you read, I won't flow it and you will lose on the flow. DO NOT LIE ON FLOW!!!

Paper debate: I debated in a completely digital circuit and the only people who used paper did it for a competitive advantage so I am a big paper debate hater. I think evidence should be available to everyone in the round for accessibility's sake. If you don't give me your files and I miss a tagline or argument I'm not going to fix it later, that's on you :)

CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!

Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed.

Spreading: I think speed and spreading are different things. If you speak faster but I can still hear actual words coming out of your mouth you're all good. Spreading so fast that your words are unintelligible is not acceptable. If I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth then I'm not flowing it. I can only write/type so fast, if I miss something I'm not going back to fix it later.

I don't really care what you call me in round, judge is what I prefer but it's also not that serious. Don't call me Sydney though, that's weird and it always gave me the ick when I debated

If I give you an RFD and you try to argue with me over my decision I will drop your speaker points <3

__________________________________________________________________________________________

MIDDLE SCHOOL/NOVICE POLICY:

I've judged a lot of novice debate in my home state of Kansas, but it's been a while since I've debated, so go easy on me with speed and the amount of arguments you run.

Honestly, just have fun with it and PLEASE be flowing. I’ve judged a lot of bad novice debate but as long as you aren’t dropping and picking up arguments left and right you’ll be fine in front of me.

Just be nice to each other and DO NOT WASTE SPEECH TIME! Speak for the whole time! Every speech!

I love roadmaps, clear signposting, judge instruction, and impact calc! Please do it!

If you read the TL;DR section earlier then you should be all set with my expectations. You can read the rest of my paradigm is you want, but this is essentially what I’ll be evaluating the round on :) Good luck!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

HIGH SCHOOL/JV-OPEN-VARSITY:

On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.

Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.

K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then. I AM NOT A GOOD K JUDGE THOUGH! Great with feminist lit and AAPI lit, but that is it.

K Affs: NO! I want you to be debating the actual resolution, it's there for a reason. I think the advocacy and theory behind a lot of K Affs is really cool, but I think there are ways to incorporate the ideas and arguments of a K Aff into a topical affirmative for the resolution. As long as the neg can carry T through the entire debate they will win.

DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.

T: I'm a reformed T hater. While I don't like T being used as a time suck or being used against obviously topical cases, I LOVE LOVE LOVE a T double bind. Not a fan of T with novice caselist. You have a packet with every possible adv and argument, there are no voters. Voters are the biggest thing for me on t. Even if you can prove a violation, if you have no voters then it doesn't matter to me. AKA losing voters = losing the arg

CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF. Generally I think CPs are lazy ways to get out of interacting case, if you go with a CP I still want to see flow on case. I hate seeing more than one CP, no multiple worlds nonsense. If you're still holding onto both of them by rebuttals and don't tell me which you're kicking then I will choose what to kick and I guarantee you won't be happy with my choice.

Rebuttals: The most important part of the round to me. Give me a well organized and efficient rebuttal. This is your time you really hammer in the central messages and ideas of your case, don't waste it.

Analytics: Don't tell me a team didn't properly respond to your arguments when they read analytics. You're not going to have a card for everything and that's ok, sometimes you only need a quick analytic (but not all the time, use cards when you can <3).

Condo: BAD! If you've got like 3 off 2 DA and T and drop T by the 2NR then that's fine but I will not sit through more than that. 4+ off only shows that you came in ill prepared to actually debate the resolution. I want quality over quantity.

Aff Kick: I'm not a fan. I think aff kick changes aff advocacy and also incentivizes running half-baked weak advantages just to time skew and kick them later. I understand the need in higher speed rounds, but in general aff kick is a reason to vote neg for me. I think aff kick should be exclusively reserved for when you are badly losing an advantage or scenario. I already have a limited amount of ground I can vote aff on, why are you limiting it even further? All it does is concede negative offence, reduce affirmative potential, leave room for direct judge intervention, and limits your strategic flexibility. It is def a risk that could pay off, but I've never personally seen it executed well.

Things I hate:

• Extinction good

• Bootlickers and butt-kissers

• Name calling/accusations. DO NOT resort to calling your opponents names. Calling someone racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist etc. is serious and not just something to win you the debate round.

• Assuming facts about a person and forming arguments about them in round. It is so funny for me as a white-passing-Asian getting "called out" for running Asian related arguments.

• K Affs (hate hate hate hate hate hate)

• "This is my CX" This is so unnecessary just move on , you don't have to engage. I HATE this

• Calling for abuse when there so clearly wasn't, again, serious not just to win you the round

• Not a politics DA person. I've run and cut enough of them to know how bad the uniqueness arguments can be. If you lose uniqueness then you lose the DA. Unless you can cut a politics DA right before or the day of probably avoid these with me. I love the idea of them but it just end up being a recency debate and I hate that with a passion

• Yes or no questions in cx. If you asked someone a question let them answer it how they want to answer it, don't put words in their mouth. If you do this nonsense (not the word I want to use) I will feel more sympathetic to the team being CXed. Yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no does nothing for anyone

Things I love:

• More tangible real-world impacts. Structural violence>>>nuke war

• A good trade-off DA

• DOUBLE BINDS <333

• IMPACT CALC

• Framing! ESPECIALLY uncontested framing

Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.

My name is Akshitha (ack-shee-tha) and I am a varsity policy debater. I have been doing policy for two years, and have gone to regionals, state, and districts.

Disclosure- Always disclose. No exceptions. I want to be on the speechdrop/email-chain

Speed- I am fine with speed.

Topicality/ theory- I know how to evaluate but still make an effort to explain it to me. Don't run dumb stuff. Both theory and topicality need to show clear abuse for me to vote on it.

Kritiks- love love love. explain your alt or I don't really care. But if you run a K, run it well.

Signpost or I’ll be annoyed.

I don't want to hear any bigotry you will get the L.

speech drop is fine. please add me to the email chain: xkatewardx@gmail.com

Manhattan High School '24

KU '28 (not debating) studying Chinese, IR, and political science.

***i have difficulty with auditory processing, so while i can follow a fast pace, spreading will likely lose me and you the round. if you have any questions/concerns about this, feel free to ask me. i will clear you twice if you ask me to, but after that you're on your own ***

i debated all four years and competed in dci/varsity policy debate (kansas words for nationaly circut style debate). feel free to ask questions after round or email me.

novices/middle school—don't worry about a lot of what's in this paradigm, most of it isn't relevant to novice debate. regardless of what you run, you do your best and i'll do my best to give you helpful feedback. if you're confused about something or get overwhelmed, please talk to me and we'll figure it out. your learning and well-being will always override competition. also please ask me questions after round! i'm always down to answer debate questions.

top level:

i am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. my view of "policymaker" does leave room for in-round impacts. i have dabbled in kritical debate before, so feel free to run whatever so long as you explain it well. impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. an overview is always appreciated. tech over truth—BUT i have two sorta-exceptions: 1) the round requires an evaluation on truth and 2) the more absurd/abusive/unrealistic arguments get, the lower my bar gets for your opponents to counter it (please call out nonsense *politely*). i love and greatly appreciate a quality, well-researched strat, and die a little every time i see otherwise (don't get hung up on this if you're just desperate/panicked, i've been there too). judge instruction! tell me why and how i should vote in the rebuttals!

hurtful language and/or bigoted behavior are an auto loss. all requested accommodations should be made without issue. rudeness will hurt your speaks and my willingness to vote for you. please just be nice and considerate.

topicality

i default to competing interpretations. T for the sake of timesuck or forcing a link is fine. if you're actually going in on T, there needs to be significant debate about harms/benefits of the two models of debate, and what i should ultimately prefer. why does it matter that they're not topical? what precedent does that set for future rounds?

counterplans

general—run them! i ran (and love) unique/custom counterplans that are both textually and functionally competitive (different actor, and at least meaningfully different action). that being said, i think a lot of counterplans can be really abusive, so i'm a little predisposed to theory on anything that fails to present a truly competitive alternative. i think future or conditional fiat is probably abusive. net benefits need to be well articulated (especially internal net benefits), and the negative needs to explain why a perm severs, not just say that it does. that being said, i'll vote on any counterplan based on how it goes on the flow. major props though to teams running genuinely good advocacies as counterplans, even more so if you kick it in the end.

counterplan theory—aff, please avoid intrinsic perms. neg, please call out intrinsic perms and explain why they should be rejected (voters). fyi, an intrinsic perm adds an element previously not present to the plantext; time (a delay), this-then-that, etc. "PDB shields the link" needs to be explained, and an explanation of what the PDB would look like is necessary if you want me to vote on it. neg, point out that no explanation has been given. a good answer to a perm is simply an explanation of the textual and functional competition of your counterplan, it should almost never require evidence. do not run 7 unexplained perms and then expect me to vote on them if they neg doesn't respond to all 7 of them individually---especially if you just shadow extend and never articulate them. condo is probably good, but i can be convinced otherwise.

disads

i really respect a well run disad. uniqueness should be up to date or at least you need to be able to analytically convince me everything is still practically unique. specific links can go a long way, but again, a good contextualization of a generic link through analytics can also work. impact calc shouldn't just be buzz words, but explained in the specific context of the impact scenarios at play. turns case/impact turns need to be well explained and preferably carded—well-articulated turns will really help you out on the rest of the flow. don't forget the time frame when analyzing impacts!

kritiks

general—i have experience with these lit bases: security, orientalism/techno-orientalism (i love poststructuralist kritiks), abolition, cap, and racial cap, but i can probably judge most things as long as it's explained well. links should ideally be more than just omission (the aff failing to do x) and more than just the topic broadly (or at least contextualized more specifically). if it's not your story don't tell it, but also please don't use your experiences as leverage over other teams. you have a right to share, but not a right to shut others down. we're here to learn, and shutting people out ruins that.

specifics—i think that link work is just as important as explaining/defending the alt, but a lot of teams focus so heavily on proving their links that they forget to develop their alt—the alt is your advocacy, so it needs to be fleshed out, even if unopposed in round. i will be extremely hesitant to vote on something i do not understand, because if i can't understand it, how am i supposed to know it solves? if the aff points that out in round, and the neg doesn't clarify, that's enough for me to prefer the aff. K's without alt's are just case turns, and if the link isn't specific, they're really not persuasive—please point this out aff teams. i think aff teams should probably be able to weigh the plan, unless you can convince me something outweighs that in terms of education and fairness (harmful rhetoric, etc).

identity-centric kritiks--don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. using these narratives just because you know you can beat a policy team with them causes real-world harm. seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out all your rounds matters to me.

kritik theory--condo in K rounds is the one of the only times i find it even remotely persuasive and that's for the simple fact that answering Ks (well) takes time. there's a lot more perms available on K's, but please don't run +3 unexplained perms and expect them to win the round. neg teams, i think perm spec theory is a good reason for me to reject the argument. floating PIKs are usually pretty dirty (rarely actually solve for the plan), but if they're fairly obvious from the onset, i'll give you more leeway.

k-affs

i'll vote for a k-aff, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random judge matters to your aff. a strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. there are opportunities for a perf con debate that i haven't been seeing with enough teams--why is your k-aff focused on black identity asking for the validation/approval of me, a white judge? the ask alone feels contradictory. if it isn't, explain why.

theory

theory exists to stop toxic (in-round) behavior, reinforce a positive debate culture, and prioritize education in a debate. i do not think it exists to overwhelm the other team or secure an easy win. i think fairness and education are voting issues (if the situation truly violates those concepts), and i'm down for less common voters (inclusion, clash, real world, portable skills, iterative testing, etc)

y'all should be running more perf con.

QLS 24 (2A|2N)

USC 28 (2A)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

International student from China (If you read China bad. I still vote for u if u win, but I will post round u afterward). Debated 2 years core policy (Water, Fiscal Redistribution) and 1 year K (NATO) in high school. In college is mostly K with some policy in between. Overall, I think am a mediocre debater, but probably better as judge cuz I feel sucks if I am not flowing and we all waste another 2 hrs of our life here

I learned most things I know about debate from Chris Thiele - he has some unconventional philosophy regard debate and definitely affect me a little bit

24-25 Updates: I am not quite familiar with this year's high school topic, but I think I marginally learned more through more debates I judged this year. That being said plz explain the case clearly if u want to go on a case debate : ) Everything else is fine with me

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Yes Speech Doc. All doc should be Word Verbatimized. PDF caps speaks at 28 or below.

- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep

-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)

1. No stock issue.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA in the block with just one sentence with no link chain or impact calc at all

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- Go for Hidden Aspec = "L ". The best offense for me for 1AR new response justification should be the model of debate that spreads random one line theory argument everywhere in the 1NC is freaking bad.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness could be an impact and I belive burnout is real. However, history already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

-My English sucks - if u phrase your DA/standard with fancy words explain that pls. If I can't flow it, you don't get it.

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

DA

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

CP

- 24/25 Update: TBH no one figure out this year hs topic really well. It seems like a pattern everyone is running process. Therefore, even though I hate process, my ballot rate on it this year is still 50/50. Competition c/a T and Theory

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

Ks

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.

- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.

- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop. Instead, I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year (Quantum Mechanics) and first semester in college (ESL K), so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick

LD:

- Trojan Invitation Update: Never judged LD this year. Know zero about the topic, but everything else is fine

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!