Hey, I'm Ebenezer Appiah, I go by he/him/his pronouns and I competed for Alief Elsik School School from 2019-2023 where I had a couple of standout achievements World Schools wise.

TL;DR: I vote on the best remaining offensive material at the level at which it is proven. Typically this just means choosing the clash/material you are winning and using existing and (sufficient) warranting to access an impact that you can realistically weigh out your opponent with. If you prove your argument at the specific level at which you want it to operate ur chillin. I almost always auto-70 a speech that lacks terminal argument development so doing this will for sure raise speaks even if you lose the round.

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
• Not proving your arguments (I don't buy things in a vacuum - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they meet some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

• Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/ are more likely to occur in contrast to your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact level must concede the warrant level (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant level weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant level (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact level.
• Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round. It doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge instruction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
• General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. I must know why a claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the stuff mentioned above is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but is necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. As a competitor who spoke a bit quicker than the norm in WSD, I understand how an overbearing focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good argumentation. If I can flow it and you signpost, you'll do fine. Arg quality> rhetoric. Ideally, the best speeches have all three, but my pivot is more toward content and strategy.

Principled arguments are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that may have been well established but was poorly leveraged against other arguments. Another thing principle-wise, if the principle stops at proving a moral benefit of the motion without prescribing the moral necessity of the motion, I’m probably not going to buy it because that’s just a utilitarian argument in disguise. The principle needs to set a framework for moral evaluation and then explain why violating that framework produces moral injury.

All and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun!

If you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

Hello! I’m Mira - I’ve competed in policy for 6 years (Taipei American School 2020-2024, University of Michigan 2024-Present)

Email: mirababa@umich.edu

General things:

Tech > Truth

Best for traditional policy debates (process, disads + counterplans, big impact turns)

I do not evaluate anything that happened outside of round. This includes screenshots of chats, allegations vs the other team’s character, etc.

I am very strict on new arguments in the 2AR. I defer to protecting the 2NR, so there should be a clear line between what the 1AR said and the 2AR explanation of it. This means 1ARs must explain the implication of their arguments because if only a tagline extension was made, the 2AR does not get to impact said argument out.

I flow CX, CX is binding

Speaker points:

Speaker point inflation > deflation, so if I give below a 28.5 you were probably mean to either your opponents or partner, clipped, etc. My average falls between 28.7 - 29.5.

Clarity matters a lot more than technical execution when deciding speaker points. This means I often give low-point wins if the losing team was more clear when spreading.

Counterplans:

I love process counterplans a lot more than the average person (maybe a little too much). Please make it very clear what you compete off of and simplify the actions of the counterplan as much as possible in your explanations.

Advantage counterplans are cool but please don't spam like 10000 planks because then it just gets messy :(

I do not judge kick counterplans unless instructed to

Disads:

Every single component of the DA must be extended. I find that 2NRs increasingly forget to extend uniqueness or some other part of the DA (how????). Similarly, the 2AC should answer every part of the DA.

Case must be a substantial portion of the 2NR if you are not extending a counterplan when going for the DA. Impact turns case, link turns case, impact happens faster than the aff are all things I am very willing to base a decision on.

Topicality (not framework):

Please overexplain rather than underexplain your interp in t debates, especially because i have limited knowledge on the high school topic. I won’t know what a lot of abbreviations / acronyms are.

Overlimiting is better than underlimiting.

Ground loss is the most convincing standard for me

Kritiks:

Links must be unique to the plan. There needs to be a tangible reason why the aff makes the status quo worse.

Interpretations that do not let the aff weigh their plan is probably bad. I think the most reasonable interp is that the neg gets rep links but the aff gets their impacts

If you are reading anything besides cap, security, or setcol, please overexplain rather than underexplain your links

K affs / Framework:

K affs need to have a connection to the topic and clear solvency mechanism.

Fairness is an impact, not an internal link

TVA > SSD in most debates

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

"Off-Time Roadmaps"

Stop. If you signpost and are clear throughout your speeches, I will not need a "brief," off-time roadmap.

If I am flowing DAs, CPs, Ks, Advantages on separate pages, just give me the order (e.g., "The order is Case, DA, CP").

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

I have mostly Worlds School experience, as well as congress, impromptu and extemp.

WSD:

• Good clash, structure, framework
• I really like a well developed principle argument, especially when it’s cleanly carried out.
• Weigh your arguments
• No rehashing, if you do I will not be listening.
• Strategic POIs are appreciated

Congress:

• Add to the debate, rehashing arguments will be counted against you
• Do not just give me rhetoric, provide analysis and weighing
• Good strategy is appreciated

Extemp:

• Have good structure and time utilization
• I like good and well developed content, in-depth analysis is appreciated
• Be creative with your speech

Have fun & be kind :)

Hi, y'all!

I'm currently a senior at Mount Vernon High School in Washington state! I've competed very frequently in speech & debate since middle school, and my mom is the coach of our team. My pronouns are he/they and my email ist8kdb8@gmail.com ! Feel free to reach out if you need help or have any questions at all, debate is my favorite thing to do, my favorite thing to talk about, and probably my favorite thing ever! (Therefore, debaters are my favorite people!!)

Debate-wise, I've been competitive in policy, lincoln douglas, and congressional debate. I also do Worlds Schools debate and am a member of the 2024/2025 USA Debate team. I'm also a member of the NSDA's Student Leadership Council! For IEs, I typically compete in impromptu and extemp-- this year, I also did oratory! I was State Champion in Washington in LD and Impromptu in 2024, and Extemp in 2023.

If I'm judging you, you're definitely a younger debater (because I am 17) so here are just 3 things I hope to see in any round (of speech or debate!) --

1. Creativity! I love it when debaters do their own research, go with arguments they believe in, and take risks! If you're passionate about something, you'll probably be infinitely more persuasive and I'll love that! Don't run things just because somebody else handed you a file... try to write your own cases and develop your own understanding! It's harder, but worth it, I promise.
2. Refutation! Nothing makes a debate round less debate-y than when the debaters are 'two ships passing in the night'- try to engage with what your opponents are saying! Believe me, saying something, even if it's not the best argument or going to win you the debate, is almost always better than saying nothing! You have to start somewhere, and I'll give you higher speaker points when I can tell you heard/understood an opponents argument (even if you struggle on answering it).
3. Have fun! I've talked to SO many younger debaters (from my team and others!) who always feel so bad after rounds and are SO harsh on themselves. I promise- everybody's had a bad round before and no single round is reflective of you as a competitor, and no single round will influence your future as a welcomed member of the community! So many of you are smarter than you think, and I've never watched a single speech where I haven't been astonished by the potential I've seen! Frankly... the worst rounds are those were people are so nervous they slip up. We have a motto on my team for this: "Fake it 'til you make it!"

* I have also learned I love organization <3 ! Numbering your arguments, signposting (saying when you're moving from one point to another), etc. ! I like having neat and clean flows at the end of the day! *

Hi! I'm Julia (she/her).

This is my third year of competing in World Schools Debate at St. John's, and I'm currently serving on the '23-'24 rendition of Team Texas.

What I'm looking for in a round:

1. Clear warranting -- I like to see enumerated reasons for why your argument is true. Unwarranted arguments are very hard to vote on, and the round becomes very messy when both teams fight over a characterization without giving me any specific reason to believe one side over another. Warranting is the foundation of the debate, so remember to prove why something is true all the way through your impacts and extensions and it will be a much cleaner round.

2. Comparative -- Remember that Worlds asks you to prove why your world is better than your opponent's, so it's not enough to attack your opponent's world without explaining how you more effectively solve the harms you point out.

3. Clash -- Worlds asks you to consider the heart of the debate, so I don't like to vote for teams who run tricky arguments that restrict the ground for debate. Instead, you should be engaging with what the motion is reasonably asking you and giving your opponent enough ground to produce a fruitful clash. From there, if you can identify which of your arguments directly clash with theirs and explain to me why you are able to take that clash, you're in a great spot. I also really like teams who bite the bullet, so don't be afraid to take a hard stance and really engage with the motion if it gives you more offense.

4. Weighing -- Outside of your direct refutation against your opponent's case, weigh the impacts of both sides on their highest ground and tell me why I should prefer your arguments over theirs even if they are able to win some of their case material. Meta-level weighing about what kinds of arguments I should prefer to others is also great. When it comes to weighing down the back bench remember that the most convincing threes always make strategic concessions to their opponents and use "even if" phrasing to tell me why I should still buy your side even at your lowest ground.

5. Signposting -- self explanatory

If you're able to do these things well, it will be a lot easier for me to evaluate the round and vote for you.

In terms of style, do what feels comfortable! I prefer to evaluate style based on the organization and clarity of your speech rather than factors like your volume, pitch, or speed. We all speak and debate differently, so provided that you speak clearly and at a pace that's reasonable for me to flow, you should be fine.

My name is Sebastian and I have been arguing since I could talk. Things I enjoy: - Meme cases - Aggressive Cross - Passive Aggressiveness in round - Passion My voting decision is based on - Presentation - How well you can bs in a round - How strong of a speaker you are - Your ability to be convincing - How well you can defend your cases

My name is Sebastian and I have been arguing since I could talk. Things I enjoy: - Meme cases - Aggressive Cross - Passive Aggressiveness in round - Passion My voting decision is based on - Presentation - How well you can bs in a round - How strong of a speaker you are - Your ability to be convincing - How well you can defend your cases

With a distinguished record spanning 5 years, I bring a wealth of experience and insight to the world of debating. Over the course of my journey, I've had the privilege of attending numerous tournaments, each one serving as a milestone in my growth and development as a judge.

My expertise encompasses a wide array of prestigious events, including the renowned World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), EUDC, where I've not only participated but also adjudicated with precision and fairness. Furthermore, I've lent my adjudicative skills to the United Asian Debating Championships (UADC), navigating the complexities of argumentation.

In addition to my involvement in WUDC and UADC, I have honed my skills across various debate formats, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) and speech formats including HI, Improv, OO among others. This versatility has equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the diverse nuances and strategies inherent in different styles of debate.

I am also a big believer of feedback because that is how we all grow, so speakers can be rest assured of accurate and logical feedback.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Best of luck!

John

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

World Schools:

1- To me, Worlds is all about your ability to characterize and explain what is likely to be true. Examples are useful, but they need robust warranting behind them. The quality of your arguments matter a lot.

2- Be comparative! Don't just explain why your world is good, but why it's comparatively better than your opponents'.

3- The third and reply speeches should crystallize the debate into a few central clashes. Make sure to weigh between clashes as well as between opposing mechanisms within the same clash.

4- Principled arguments are really cool, but make sure to explain why your principle comes before consequences.

5- Content and strategy matter more to me than style. Style is important, but improvements in style quickly become less and less important after a certain threshold is reached (you're understandable, speaking at a moderate pace, and not reading from your paper).

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!