My name is Val and I would say I have a lot of debate experience. I did policy debate for 1 year in middle school and 4 years in high school. I was a part of the Bay Area Urban Debate League (BAUDL) and went to most national tournaments. I also went to debate camp all four years I was in high school . I was a flex debater so I ran both policy and kritik/performance arguments. I do not have a preference for arguments. I will vote on who did the better debating regardless of what arguments are presented. I try to leave my personal preferences outside of the round.

However, below I've left my preferences/opinions on certain arguments just in case any team is interested in seeing what my thoughts are.

Topicality/Framework:

I ran topicality/framework a lot in high school, it was one of my favorite arguments to run on the negative against K/performance affs. I think that if a team chooses to run this argument or go for it in a debate round it's important to really stress the significance of topicality/framework. If you can convince me that your voters are important in regards to the round and in general debate, I'll vote neg. However, personally I don't believe that T/framework is a voter, it's hard for me to be convinced it is.

K Affs/Performance Affs:

My favorite. I love judging rounds that have K affs or performance affs. The only thing is that you'd have to really break down what solvency looks like in regards to the aff. You'll win me easily on the impacts of the K but you'll have to do the work on proving what solvency looks like for the aff and what spill over looks like.

K's on Neg:

This is also one of my favorite arguments on the neg. I'll usually vote on the K if and only when links are strong and there's a good alternative to the K. As in, you can explain what the world of the alternative looks like and how the permutation fails on the aff's end. I'd also appreciate a good impact calculus as well.

Disads/CP's:

I'm familiar with disads/counterplans but I did not run them as much in high school. Just make sure that you're clear on what the links are and how the counterplan is mutually exclusive in regards to the aff. Not a huge fan of the politics disad, however, if you explain it well and there's clash I could vote for it.

I am an experienced coach and judge of about 10 years but have no experience actually debating myself. As a person who comes to debate as an educator first, I am predisposed to argumentation that open spaces for youth to explore real ideas and their relationships to them. This translates into a few concrete implications for preferences:

1. I don't like spreading, which is not to say I can't deal with moderately fast talking, but the idea of fitting in as many arguments as possible to get your opponent to drop something, to me, is not the point of debate.

2. I don't like debates about the definitions of words in a resolution, so if you are going to run topicality on the neg, it better be good. As long as the aff does a minimally competent job answering T, I'm not voting for it. In the age of electronic disclosure and Open Ev, I'm not into the sob stories about fairness and being unable to prep. However, theory debates about why resolutions and being topical are good/not good for debate I think are a lot more worthwhile.

3. I like kritiks and critical affs, but make sure you understand what you are talking about and didn't just download a file that you think has a cool title. Make it your own if you are going to run it, otherwise we end up with bad debates where two sides don't understand each other.

4. I think that it is important that we bring our whole selves into the debate space and value argumentation that actually connects to debater's identities and experiences. Along with that, I will hold everyone to a high standard of mutual respect for each other's backgrounds and perspectives.

All that being said, I'm open to any style and will listen to any argument. Even though I may not like certain types of arguments, I will vote based on what I hear in the round. I expect debaters to do the work for me of sorting through the flow and telling me why they won. Unless something is blatantly sexist/racist/homophobic/violent, I'm not voting against it unless I'm told to vote against it. Good impact calculus goes a really long way for me!

Name: Paul Gladden Debate Experience: 1 year LD (High School) 3 years Policy Debate (HS) 4 years Parli (Grossmont College/SDSU). Multiple years Judging. General Philosophy: My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round based on the quality of evidence, the clarity of argumentation, and the strategic choices made by the debaters. Speed: I am comfortable with speed, but clarity is key. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot flow or evaluate them. Please slow down for taglines, citations, and important arguments. Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative team runs a topicality argument and proves that the affirmative is not within the bounds of the resolution, the affirmative needs to either prove they are topical or that their interpretation of the topic is preferable. Disadvantages and Counterplans: I am open to voting on disadvantages and counterplans. Counterplans must be competitive and mutually exclusive. Kritiks: I am open to kritiks, but they must be clearly explained and linked to the affirmative case. The alternative must be clear, and the negative must explain why the kritik is a voting issue. Speaker Points: Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, strategic choices, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. Being respectful to your opponents is critical.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Harbor Teacher Preparation Academy '21

UC Berkeley '25

she/her, lh.ny.57@gmail.com

Pref--I am a fairly new judge for LD so please slow down on theory/ dense arguments

-Lax with prep but don't steal time sending out docs

-IF it's NOT ON THE FLOW ur args are a blow

-don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or you lose period

-tech > truth

Anyways.....

I have been in policy debate for all 4 years of my high-school career. I competed in the Urban Debate Leauges and finished as the City Champion for LA and moved on to semi's of Nationals. When I did compete we ran lots of critical arguments on rhetoric, setcol and afropess so I am most familiar with that literature. tabula rasa

T

I lean aff in reasonability. Unless you're really down for a T debate in the 2nr I say you cut it in the block because I start to tune out.

DA

I enjoy these when they are impacted out well.

K

-assume I have no clue what your literature is and explain it to me like such

-you need to explain to me clearly why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and why that should come first in the round

-you need to tell me why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and what that implies

-you need a lot of comparative work and internal links that get impacted out for me to evaluate and vote for it

-if at the end of the round I don't know how that alt functions or the value of my vote for the K, I'm comfortable voting aff

I'm looking to judge rounds with lots of clash and fruitful debate---- that means I prefer smaller more cohesive arguments than 10 off

-you can affirm the resolution in any way

***-read arguments that you are familiar with not the ones you think will just win you the round****

Extra speaks if

-you're a good persuader not just a good debater

-clear & concise

Hi, my name is Allen Nesbitt. You may add me to your chain at ahnesbitt@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him.

I enjoy debate strategy. I am probably on the more traditional side in that I like cases with plans on the aff. That said, I will consider an argument so long as it is coherent and well reasoned. I will weigh a kritik that makes solid strategic sense in the round. I believe that K affs or affs that do not have plans have a high bar to cross on T.

I enjoy the clash inherent in competitive policy debate.

I value creative and new arguments.

I am fine with speed and tag team cx. Speak only as quickly as you can speak clearly. Go slower and OUTLINE your analytics!

I debated HS in Kansas for four years and today I own a progressive political consulting firm based in SF and DC and specialized in opposition research (oppo research = writing 1ac and 1nc blocks about political candidates and issues).

https://www.nesbittresearch.com/about/allen-nesbitt/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/allennesbitt

Philosophy: I approach debate as an educational activity that values clarity, argumentation, and strategic thinking. Debaters should engage in well-researched and informed discussions, prioritizing depth over breadth. I appreciate creativity and unique arguments but expect them to be grounded in evidence and logic.

Framework: I default to a policymaker perspective, meaning I will evaluate the round based on which team provides the most compelling reasons to adopt or reject the proposed policy. However, I am open to alternative frameworks if both teams agree on an alternative way to evaluate the round. Without a clear framework, I will default to a policy-focused approach.

Flowing: I flow the round and prioritize arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in later speeches. Clear signposting and road mapping help me follow your arguments better. If an argument is dropped, it is the responsibility of the opposing team to point it out.

Evidence: Quality evidence is crucial. I prefer well-cited and recent evidence that directly supports your claims. I am skeptical of evidence taken out of context, so provide a nuanced and accurate representation of your sources.

Clash: I appreciate substantive clashes between teams. Rebuttals should not solely focus on defense but should engage with the core arguments presented by the opposing team. The more direct clash and engagement with your opponent's case, the better.

Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic thinking, and effective cross-examination. Being respectful and professional is also essential. High speaker points are earned through strong argumentation and effective communication.

Speed: I am comfortable with speed but prioritize clarity over speed. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them. Be mindful of your pacing and make sure to signpost clearly.

Flexibility: While I default to a policymaker framework, I am open to evaluating the round through different lenses if both teams provide reasons. Adaptability and responsiveness to the arguments made in the round are key.

ADD ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN

meilirubio7@gmail.com