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.

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.

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

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com

General thoughts:

As a judge for policy debate, I am not comfortable with debaters spreading. I will warn debaters once about clarity, and speed, after that speaker points will decline and flow accuracy will be in question. I am not well versed in debate lingo, but I can give a common RFD. My paradigm is centered around fairness, critical analysis, and effective communication. I approach each round with an open mind and evaluate the arguments presented based on their merits. Here is a breakdown of my judge's paradigm:

1. Fairness and Impartiality:

- I strive to be an impartial and unbiased judge, evaluating the round solely on the arguments presented by the debaters.

- I expect debaters to adhere to the rules and norms of policy debate, and I will enforce them to ensure fairness for all participants.

- I am open to hearing new and innovative arguments, but they must align with the established rules and standards of the debate.

2. Critical Analysis and Evaluation:

- I carefully evaluate the quality and strength of the arguments presented by each team.

- I prioritize well-reasoned and logical arguments that are supported by credible evidence and analysis.

- I expect debaters to clearly articulate their positions, provide logical reasoning, and respond effectively to their opponent's arguments.

3. Communication and Presentation:

- I value clear and effective communication in debate rounds.

- I expect debaters to present their arguments in a manner that is easy to understand, well-organized, and persuasive.

- I appreciate debaters who actively listen, respond thoughtfully to their opponent's arguments, and engage in respectful cross-examination.

4. Respectful Conduct and Sportsmanship:

- I expect debaters to engage in respectful and civil discourse throughout the round.

- I appreciate debaters who demonstrate good sportsmanship by respecting their opponents and engaging in constructive dialogue.

• I will not tolerate personal attacks, disrespectful behavior, or discrimination in the debate round.

5. Clarity and Organization: I appreciate clear and well-organized arguments, use logical reasoning, and present their arguments in a structured manner.

6. Evidence and Analysis: I value evidence-based as well as current events arguments I appreciate thorough analysis of the evidence presented.

7. Clash and Rebuttal: I want to see debaters engage in meaningful clash and rebuttal. I expect debaters to respond to their opponent's arguments, identify weaknesses in their opponent's case, and provide counterarguments. I see the value in debaters who can effectively refute their opponent's arguments and defend their position.

8. Persuasiveness and Impact: I look for debaters who can persuade me with compelling arguments. I appreciate debaters who can explain the importance and implications of their arguments and show how they relate to the overall debate topic. I want to see debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas and convince me of the merits of their position.