hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i debated for niceville high school in nwfl & am currently a first-year at columbia

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

note for stanford/online tournaments: go like 70-80% speed for me; my audio quality is pretty good but has issues sometimes

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

general stuff:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

misc stuff:

in-round safety is my highest priority; that means i'm down to stop the round even if neither debater says anything about what i'm perceiving as a safety violation (i.e., repeated, salient misgendering). similarly, you will lose the round with awful speaks if you are making it an unsafe space for me or anyone else in the room

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks)

i'll try to do a prn check before round for safety reasons but if i don't, remind me

drop ur spotify and i'll adjust your speaks by somewhere between -1 and 1 based on how much i like your music taste

tell me a fun fact about destin or niceville florida and if i didn't know it already i'll bump your speaks. emphasis on fun fact, not like, the year they were founded

k/performance:

last year i almost exclusively read kritiks rooted in identity (queer/trans*, fatness) literature, so i'm best at evaluating this debate. non-identity ks are also cool

lbl > overviews w/ a ton of embedded clash

for the t-fw debate, counterinterps are cool and so are turns. also carded tvas are way more convincing

k(pomo):

i'm stupid and don't understand a lot of pomo stuff -- feel free to read it, but please be thorough in explaining the lit base

theory:

no theory is friv but there are some norms that are way less intuitive for me. that being said i'll still evaluate them if you're winning the theory debate

weigh between standards within the context of the round and u will prob like the rfd more

tell me why theory uplayers so that i can vote on it

trix:

implicate things on the flow and clean things up if they're messy

LARP(policy) and lay:

didn't read much of this, but i'll be fine evaluating it as long as you do the work for me

i never had much fun with lay debate but if thats your jam go for it

be nice to novices & lay debaters at circ tournaments for the first time

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: i am not a pf judge. i know little about this event and i would rather be judging something else. i will evaluate things on the flow, but make it easier for me to do that and you will be happier with the decision.

My pronouns are He/Him. I am a Junior at Rowland Hall. Have fun!

My email is zacharyklein@rowlandhall.org

My paradigm is similar to those of Micah Sheinberg and Daniel Luo

Strike me if you read Baudrillard.

Tech>Truth

I will not vote on your 'dropped' 4 second aspec shell hidden within your topicality block unless your extension of ii goes conceded as well.

I should be able to understand what you are saying.

I default to judge kick including your aff plan, your perm, and your cp/alt.

I don't understand the point of disad turns the case arguments when the disad has a super low risk against a soft left aff with a high risk.

You should explain not only how to weigh impacts and why your impacts outweigh in your specific model.

Speaker points are reflective of your strength of arguments and the clarity of your voice.

+ 0.5 speaks if you make a Neville Longbottom reference.

I am a student at Columbia University and at Trinity College Dublin. My debate experience is primarily with parliamentary formats, having competed at EUDC and judged at WUDC numerous times. I prefer speakers that speak at more perceivable speeds, give clear signposting, and present interesting and unique arguments. Assume I have no background knowledge of topics beyond that of the average intelligent voter.

Email: tk2934@columbia.edu

Pronouns: he/they

Hii! I’m currently a freshman at Columbia University majoring in Political Science-Economics (at least I hope so haha). I competed primarily in World Schools, with a side hustle in Extemp. I was ranked #10 in the nation for worlds and was part of the Texas Debate Team.

WSD

I’ve competed in every speaker position so I understand most norms/expectations in this format. With that being said, these are what I value in the round:

• Clear argumentation and impact (i.e. link chain, warranting, examples are all reasonable and well-explained). Do not assume why your argument is important. Explicitly explain why I should care. I also need rational reasoning as to why your argument is realistic and applicable to the world. However, this doesn’t mean an excess reliance on examples. You just need to explain why actors/stakeholders usually act that way.

• Sign-posting (Organization is a crucial element in elevating your style and content. Signpost makes sure that we’re both on the same page.

• Crystallization and Weighing. The hardest part of the RFD is deciding the winner (in most cases). To make my job easier, you must engage with your opponent’s argumentation (through refutation or clash). When weighing, you must be charitable (i.e. you can’t compare your highest ground to their lowest ground; it doesn’t help my decision). The latter half of the debate should be spent on crystalizing clashes and explaining why your side outweighs them.

• Consistent Narrative. Crafting a central narrative around your bench is crucial to elevating your content and strategy. Please do not contradict/throw your teammates under the bus. Make sure you guys communicate team strategy before the round.

• Engagement in the debate. This isn’t just offering POIs and accepting them. It’s being respectful towards everyone in the debate. I also encourage bench communication (but don’t be excessively loud).

On the other hand, I will dock speaks/get very annoyed at any of these:

• Framing debates. Models and definition disagreements should be resolved by the second speech at the latest. I am a rational judge and will accept the fairest interpretations for both sides.

• Barricading with POIs.

• Unengagement. Please make sure you clash with your opponents. Also treading the middle ground to co-op your opponents’ arguments makes the debate incredibly hard to adjudicate and doesn’t lead to fruitful discourse. There are some instances where the middle ground can be used, but I will need explicit clarification on what is your uniqueness.

Besides that, have fun and be nice to each other. My email is chinh.le@columbia.edu if you have any questions.

some important views on debate:

tomato---------------------------------------x---------potato

also, put me on the chain please: liconnor21@gmail.com

for pf camp:

 - i did 2 years of pf and 2 years of ld

please WEIGH

2nd rebuttal should frontline everything

im ok with any type of argument that's not racist, sexist, etc. (don't say racism is good) - but most pf debaters don't run k's, theory, etc. properly so if you can't please don't :)

im ok with speed but you should be clear. i will yell clear twice and then speaks will tank - if i cant catch anything, then that's self-inflicted.

email me if you have any questions: lirose2022@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Miles. I did LD in HS (BTW c/o2022) and now sorta-coach PF in NYC. I study Philosophy and Intellectual History at Columbia (sorta pretentious); LDers, that does mean I probably will be pretty familiar with your frameworks...beware. Please don't assume I'm too familiar with the current resolutions, bc I'm not.

If you have any q's email me at miles.udwin@gmail.com :)

LD: I'm most familiar with trad LD, but you can debate however you want (though Iprobably won't vote on a K). I'm a pretty standard flow judge: win the flow and you'll win the round. That said, please do the impact calc for me, I hate having to do any weighing or extentions myself (I actually think it's kinda unfair if I do have to). I'm ok with speed, just know that I am off caffein rn and might fall asleep (if you do speed, speech dox are greatly appreciated).

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

Hey! I'm Sebastian - he/him

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (All of these have been taken from Katherine Shi):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round - if you make an independent voter that is not well warranted please do not collapse to it. It is fine strategically to have that argument, but I tend to err on the side of truth when it comes to dropping someone for conduct that is racist, homophobic, sexist - it is not a good strategic out if it isn't well warranted and is not conceded

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

he/him, freshman at Columbia studying polisci, debated exclusively policy 4 yrs at Blue Valley West at both KDC and DCI/NatCir level

call me Kevin/judge, idrc

add to email chain: kevin.xu@columbia.edu

T/L:

Please be nice (to me, the other team, and actually your partner), have fun, and talk about stuff you're passionate about

• This activity can be toxic but we'll all have a more enjoyable time if this round isn't

• I'm fine evaluating any arg as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, otherwise offensive — you will lose if it is

Haven't judged or done any research about this year's topic or its "norms" (most I can say is probably, as ashamed as I am now, I read Andrew Yang's UBI book when it first came out)

If you use some funny analogy or joke, I might boost your speaks

Not gonna go into too much detail but please ask about anything you might be curious abt

Biggest debate influence/inspo: Brandon Yao (he made me write this)

General:

Please do clear signposting (love numbered arguments for some reason), line by line, and judge instruction

Feel free to spread BUT clarity and efficiency > speed, please don't become an incomprehensible spreading mess or clip

• It'll be better for both of us if you slow down for analytics, tags, anything you want to emphasize

• Haven't watched a debate in like a year so do with that info what you will (and be extra clear and explain plz)

• Grouping and cross-applying arguments is strategic and something I will make note of when giving speaks

Make sure to actually properly extend args to carry them throughout a round — I've always disliked when teams don't do this and will reward you if you do

• Don't just say "extend 1AC 1" or "extend Blessing 22", please extend warrants too or else your evidence loses some value

• From experience, you can win a lot of debates against a lot of really good teams by mentioning a failure to do this

Policy:

Was mostly a policy debater

I find T to be underused by the neg, especially because I've witnessed so many 1ARs just completely fumble on it if the neg spends even a couple minutes on it in the block

• I'm coming in with no idea what the "consensus" about topical affs has become

• Please don't just re-read your same blocks over and over, these debates still need progression, clash, impacts, etc

Link chains are super important obviously

• Ev quality > quantity (when explained well), esp when it comes to disads (where link chains are often suspicious)

Rare massive ptx disad fan

• Plz don't rely only on months old UQ cards from camp

• I think smart, informed analytics can go a long way (e.g.: just analytically naming a bunch of thumpers)

• Will always appreciate some interesting or unique DAs — I cut a lot of uncommon PTX DAs and hated when judges would be skeptical of them

Impact calc/sufficiency framing analysis!!!!!

• Impact turns, DA O/W and turns case, case O/W and turns DA, etc, love that stuff

Do I believe presumption/absolute defense is a thing? Probably, but you might have a harder time convincing me of 0 risk than others

Can go either way on judge kick if instructed

Not the most proficient theory judge, warrant out reject arg vs reject team

• I will say I find the aff defending like 2 condo and neg defending like 3 condo slightly silly and arbitrary but do what you gotta do

K:

Have I debated against and for kritical args ((racial) cap, imperialism, taoism, Nietzsche, etc) and read critical lit? yeah. Do I want you to treat me like I have? Not really.

I'm going to know a lot more than a lay judge but I don't want to misevaluate the contents of a kritical argument after not understanding it due to a lack of explanation, especially on the alt level

Don't really care what you run for the most part, just explain it and how it interacts with the aff

I think I tend to be more swayed by args about root cause/alts or links turning case than "you link you lose", but either way can win depending on what happens

With all that being said, big fan, found myself loving K debates more and more throughout high school and ran one basically every neg round senior year

he/him, freshman at Columbia, debated 4 yrs at Westminster

add me to the chain: brandonyao21@gmail.com

T/L

Please do line by line, flow, and answer arguments in the order presented

Clarity, judge instruction, and not being mean are good

You should probably also do disclosure

Anything below can be reversed if one side is more technically proficient than the other. I will try to intervene as little as possible and remove my opinions from the round as much as possible. Unfortunately, no judge is a blank slate and I try to make my argumentative proclivities as transparent as possible.

If you have any other questions about things that aren't covered here, feel free to ask :)

K stuff

On the Neg

---I don't care what the substance of your argument is, all I care about is that you do line by line and explain how the K interacts with the Aff.

---I'm not going to list literature bases I'm familiar with because that shouldn't change how much you explain stuff.

---I will probably be more likely to vote for a strategy that centers on the alt/links turning the case than a "you link you lose" approach, but the second is possible if there's a big asymmetry in how the debate plays out.

---Framework, I try to resolve this first because it frequently determines how the rest of the debate is evaluated so I will never say "framework was a wash" unless neither team explains what their interpretation means. I don't really have any revolutionary thoughts here. However, I do think if the neg is trying to go for a you link, you lose/don't weigh the plan framework, there needs to be offense other than "caring about rhetoric is good". I've never heard a great reason that an Aff middle ground interpretation along the lines of "reps can be a basis for making the alt competitive but you should still weigh the case" doesn't solve this. Offense along the lines of "policymaking/fiat bad", or really good cards establishing a tradeoff between analyzing policy outcomes and analyzing rhetoric both seem fine.

---Framework for the Aff, the fastest way to lose a framework debate in front of me is to drop a series of the defensive arguments at the bottom of any framework 2nc/1nr.

---Specific impact explanation/how the K interacts with the case is also vital. Saying the word "militarism" or an analogy to the iraq war aren't impacts.

---Going to be honest, in a debate setting, trying to convince me utilitarianism is bad might be an uphill battle given I haven't heard any great alternative ethical frameworks that don't rely on utilitarian justifications. That’s not to say "extinction outweighs" is unbeatable in front of me, i just think I'll be persuaded better by other approaches to mitigating the Affs extinction impact including: answering the case, a plan exclusive framework interpretation, turns case arguments, having your own extinction impact, some sort of risk analysis argument (predictions fail, conjunctive fallacy etc.) a root cause claim (securitization makes threats inevitable etc.).

On the Aff

---The 2AR I am most likely to vote on has a counter interp that defines words in the resolution in an attempt to solve some neg offense (doesn't necessarily mean traditional definitions) or at the very least, a clear vision of what the topic looks like. Establishing a role for the neg beyond "you can read baudrillard" will help you a lot. Fairness is an impact (if the neg takes the time to explain why), clash might be a better one though.

Policy stuff

I care about evidence quality but only insofar as its debated out, i.e If the neg's politics uniqueness cards are far better than the Aff's but only the Aff is doing evidence comparison/spin, I'll probably end up Aff.

Absolute defense/presumption is a thing.

I'll go either way on judge-kick.

I think predictable limits matter a lot and that unpredictable but limiting interpretations don't solve anything. I can be convinced that small differences in card quality/predictability are outweighed by a big limits DA though.

The neg probably needs a counter interpretation in plan text in a vacuum debates.

theory predispositions (none of these are strongly held).

---I find the argument that competition determines legitimacy fairly persuasive. It seems to me that going for theory while conceding the CP competes is analogous to ASPEC or going for T without reading any definitions of words in the resolution.

---For process cps, there is a big difference between CPs that solve by causing the Aff via follow on, and CPs that fiat the plan but said action is conditioned on X. I.e a CP that has Mexico recommend the plan but doesn't fiat anything else is way more competitive/legitimate than a CP that fiats the plan if Mexico agrees.

---Condo debates---I think that debates where the Aff defends 2 condo and the neg defends 3 are kinda silly. The neg should defend conditionality and the Aff should defend dispositionality, unconditionality et cetera.

---Very ambivalent about everything else, ill go either way on condo, process cps, international fiat etc.