Judge Paradigm for NAUDL- Sandy Amos

I have moderate experience in debate judging. Most of my Rounds have been novice and JV rounds at BAUDL Tournaments.

I do not like spreading. If I can’t understand what you saying I can’t evaluate your arguments. I like arguments that are focused on the substance of the case. I do not find Topicality or Framework to be particularly effective. There should be considerable clash on the merits of the arguments that are presented. I do appreciate personal connections to the topics being debated. I believe that when an argument is connected to your personal experience it is more effective. Please provide your files before the debate as I like to follow along with the text as I flow.

I consider Performance Debate techniques to be a valid and creative method of debate and I am not particularly interested in argument on the format of debate. I value originality and intellectual discourse as the basis for my ballot decisions.

Hello! My name is Lucy Margulis, my email is lucy.ella.mm@gmail.com

I'm a student at Oakland tech and this is my fourth year debating policy debate. I am a 1A/2N and I tend to debate soft left policy cases. I will vote for arguments that are thoroughly expanded upon and impacted out. Make sure to stay organized and signpost. I prefer tech over truth. I hope to stay impartial to make the round as educational and fun as possible for everyone. Do not use any harmful or discriminatory language. Have fun!

T/Framework - Make sure to explain your voters, impacts, and generally why your version of debate is best. Pay attention to the role of the ballot, if there is no counter role of the ballot than I will view the round through the perspective of the one provided.

K - Make sure to explain why your framework is best for debate, how your alternative functions, and how you access solvency.

K-AFFs - Make sure to have a clear advocacy statement that proposes a change, explain why it's important for debate, and what the ballot does.

CP/DA - Make sure the CP has a clear net benefit and has case specific warrants. On the DA explain risk and impact calc. On Perms, please explain how the perm functions and why it works. I'm open to condo but start buying “condo bad” arguments around 5 off.

Case - Any case is fine, make sure you can specifically explain how your plan solves.

Speaking - Tag team cross-x is fine but please make sure both partners are speaking equal amounts. Going line by line, organization, signposting, and clear, persuasive, logical arguments are all important. Spreading is fine but please articulate and enunciate words clearly. Again, do not use harmful or discriminatory language. Remember to be passionate and have fun!

Novice judge, 1 year of experience in LD, PF, policy on the beginner level.

Not a fan of spreading.

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

Hello, debaters! I am an 11/12 English teacher at Richmond High School within the Internationals' Academy. I love well-explained evidence and extensive vocabulary!

Pronouns: (she/her)

I did not debate in high school, but I was involved with supporting the debate program at Cal during college!

I am currently the policy debate coach for Richmond High School.

Add me to your email chain please - I want to see your evidence: shelliewharton@berkeley.edu

Don’t be afraid to ask me questions before or after the round! I’m not one of those “read my paradigm and then don’t speak to me” judges, and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized, rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m very open to nontraditional arguments and K affs!

I'm a pretty flexible judge - just make sure that you stay organized, explain your arguments well, and help me understand why I should vote for you. I flow the whole round, and I want to focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round, but I’ll still write notes on the rfd if I miss something.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine:

General:

1. Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
2. Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
3. Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.
4. Finally, have fun!