San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

Hello, debaters!

I would appreciate keeping your delivery clear and unrushed, and taking care to emphasize your framework, as well as your most important contentions and refutations.

I probably respond better to a respectful tone/approach, rather than one that's highly aggressive or confrontational.

I understand that "tricks" may be part of debate, but if you find yourself needing to refute a series of frivolous contentions, I will probably be lenient with very cursory refutations. Just dispatch with the tricks quickly and move on.

Eye contact and showing at least a little bit of your genuine personality is appreciated. Let's have some fun.

I am a average judge. please be normal. I am an abroad student from China, but i have been here for like 5 years. I would prefer to send me the cases especially if you are spreading. my email is jiawei_chen@themeadowsschool.org

I also request a summary of each refutation and argument.

Hi I'm Edward Min '27 2a & 2n for Loyola it just happened like that

When debating/any event: Spediedebate@gmail.com

When doing LD: Loyoladebate47@gmail.com and also put my main debate email plz

People who have influenced me in debate: Sterling Utovac, Thatcher Hartman, Tomas Gonzalez, Rishad Vaghiwalla, John Gonzalez, Ethan Dumper, and Upton Ta-Beatle

I read mostly, policy, kritiks, and t/theory. Sprinkle in every now and then trix.

I'm good for theory, high theory, stupid theory, policy, questionably trix, and easy to understand Ks, not good, will still vote on K affs whether topical or non topical, complicated ks, and phil.

Hot take: I will vote on RVI's b/c I think they're an argument :/

I am a novice judge therefore I am not an expert in technical jargon.

My preferences are:

-State your contentions clearly.

-Speak clearly and slowly, I understand that you may speak quickly to make as many points as you can but I would prefer to be able to understand and hear you clear statements.

-Be polite and respectful of your opponent and I. This is an educational environment and we want to respect each other.

-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.

-I like quick off time road maps.

renenegrete@gmail.com

Thank you and good luck.

Hello!

I regrettably did not participate in Speech & Debate in school and have only volunteered to judge one tournament before, so inundating me with technical terms a lay judge wouldn't understand will only hamper your efforts.

Have fun and happy debating!

Background

Debated: Wayzata High School (2015-2019), Concordia College (2019-2020), University of Minnesota (2020-2024)

Coaching: Edina (2021-2024), Thomas Edison (2024-Present)

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did both local and national circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content or style may be. I have pretty minimal topic knowledge on the high school IPR topic though, so please explain your acronyms and terms of art.

I use he/him/his pronouns. You can call me "Judge" or Caleb - I don't really have a strong preference.

prostc3@gmail.com for email chains - I would prefer that over SpeechDrop.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your pre-round or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying to intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns. This is mainly because I find it much easier to conceptualize a debate between competing interpretations than a debate between an interpretation and "topicality bad".

Fairness can be an impact, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

Winning framework does not mean you no longer need to win a link or explain that link adequately. The link is always the most important part of the K.

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Death K is fine by me, but if it approaches "death good" territory I would appreciate making sure that everyone in the round is alright with you reading it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I'm fine with politics disads, even if most of them are pretty illogical.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

My predispositions on judge kick are as follows: If the neg goes for a conditional advocacy in the 2NR and there is no debate over judge kick, I will judge kick by default, as I believe it is a logical consequence of conditionality. If the neg goes for a non-conditional advocacy in the 2NR, I will not judge kick unless told to before the 2NR. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, I will not assume the advocacy is conditional and as such will not judge kick. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, but other advocacies have been read and kicked as if they are conditional, I will assume the advocacy is conditional and as a result will judge kick. The easiest way to avoid me defaulting to these predispositions is to tell me whether to judge kick or not before the final speeches.

I think disclosure is an objective good, so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg. The more egregious the instance of non-disclosure, the more likely I am to vote on it.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording. If the tournament rules don't specify what is considered clipping, I will default to assuming it is when a debater skips 5 or more continuous highlighted words in a piece of evidence without verbally marking/cutting the card at the word they stopped reading the card at.

For all other evidence ethics issues (straw person, cut in the middle of a paragraph etc.), unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round. If it is a novice or JV round, I will adopt a much more lenient stance, as I would like to maximize the amount of speeches given for educational purposes.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

If something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, violence or threats of violence etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

I won't give you a 30 just because you ask for it - I won't dock your speaks or anything if you do ask, I just don't think my speaker points are the prerogative of the debaters to decide.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points than if you didn’t.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is ssspindler97@gmail.com for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread. That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo

General Notes:

-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com

-Clarity over speed

-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else

Argument-Specific Notes:

-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.

-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.

-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.

-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.

-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.

debated pf on the nat circuit from 2020-2024 underLeland YC and Leland LY

email chain: jeannineyu@g.ucla.edu

flow

tech>truth

How I evaluate:

1. who is winning the weighing/framing?—I go to their case/other weighed lines of offense
2. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I look to the other case/lines of offense.
3. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I presume to evaluating like a lay judge (which team was more "convincing" lol) unless you tell me otherwise

Must Dos (PLEASE READ):

-signpost. please at the very least tell me when you are moving between contentions/links and going to another case/weighing. i have to know where to flow your responses!

-do full link chain extensions, I will NOT vote for shadow extensions. (this means you must re-explain uniqueness, link, internal link, impact in both summary and final focus). please see the case extensions on the bottom of this preflow if you need an example of how to extend case.

-weigh comparatively. breaking the weighing clash and winning case is the absolute easiest way to win my ballot and is what most rounds I judge come down to. my fav weighing mechs were prereqs, root cause, impact magnifiers, short circuits, timeframe metaweighing (i am a huge sucker for going for and weighing conceded turns/disads in summary) if you do impressive weighing/round vision i will give you highest speaks (~29.8-30)

-extend everything you want me to vote for in summary and FF (defense is not sticky) do NOT extend through ink, if your opponents do it just call them out, no need to respond to it

-2nd rebuttal must frontline

-pwease send docs as a google doc or as text in the email if possible. if u send docx i will need some extra time to convert. also in speed rounds pls wait for me to say i'm ready before you start

Progressive:

-i read 2 topical Ks in my senior year with a friend who is a much better K debater than me, i think i'm fine to evaluate Ks but a) at your own risk b) send me all docs since i am not super well versed on K lit

-can evaluate reasonable theory (although i would prefer not to have to judge a disclo or paraphrase round)

-don't read tricks i have no idea how to evaluate them

Other:

-spreading is chill, just send a doc in case. you must be coherent and read what's on the doc for me to flow it. if you only read off paper then no need to send a doc

-Average speaks 28.5-29.9. 30s if your round vision made the round really easy on the flow

-I'll flow responses that begin before the end of the speech time, anything after I will strike from the flow if the other team calls it out

-to minimize intervention, I only look at evidence if it's indicted in a speech or if anyone asks me to

-bring food for 30s

-don't be mean, rude, or discriminatory

you are completely free to politely post-round me. but remember, the point of any post-rounding in general should be to get feedback since the ballot will already be entered.

please ask if you have any questions! :))

for ld:

tldr: i judge like a pf flow judge.

i don't know any specific rules for this event or how decision making is supposed to work. in the past i've used a very pf-style metric for determining the winner for substance rounds:

1. framing - i see your values and criterion stuff as just framing for what i should value in the round
2. weighing - who is winning the weighing? i go to their advantage/da/cp/plan/whatever line of offense
3. are they winning the offense? if yes AND it follows the winning framework then the round is over. otherwise, I look to other lines of offense
4. are they winning the offense? if yes, the round is over. if not, i look for the place i'm most comfortable voting, and ultimately if there is no offense, i just become a lay judge and intervene (please don't make me get there)

other:

-I think I can evaluate Ks/theory/T but please read the pf section about them!

-I don't know how to evaluate phil, larp, tricks, and other ld only things. if it's not something that exists in some form in pf, i most definitely don't know how to evaluate. I'll still do my best to evaluate anything you present me though, just be warned.

-speed is fine, just send doc in case.