anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me to the chain, he/him

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

tech>truth

Read whatever best for you and I'll judge accordingly. There are inevitable argument preferences that infect my thought process but good debating and technical skills will always beat pandering to my debate beliefs. The 2nr/2ar decision should be what the best option on the flow is every time.

1. Policy v K

2. KvK

3. Policy v Policy

Policy

Plan affs - good for anything, better ev comparison gets you out of most problems. Strong specific internal links are great and the best offense against process or adv cps.

DAs - best for straight turns over turns case. Aff specific links and ev comparison gets you through most debates. DA + case 2nrs are some of my favorite to judge but I'm often convinced by case o/ws in these debates. Clear impact scenario comparison is the best judge instruction in these debates.

CPs - not the best for process, I've judged a minimal amount of competition debates but I've generally leaned towards functional competition as the best standard. Technical concessions make this debate a lot easier than I'm making it seem so if you are fully winning the competition flow explain what establishes competition and what the best standard is. Clever perms are appreciated and often easier to understand than 10 new definition cards. I love specific adv cps and rehighlighting 1ac ev goes a long way for you. Adv cps solve most affs I judge but often lose against good aff internal link analysis. Respond to deficits sufficiently and it should go your way. I default judge kick unless told otherwise.

For the aff, offensive DAs are always better than defensive arguments on CPs. Strong deficits cross-applied from case solvency/impact cards are my favorite responses and help a lot during time pressure.

T - Love and hate it. Can be great but is very often not, call out nonsensical interps and most evidence on T is atrocious. Predictable limits is prob my fav standard but anything goes. I assume models unless said otherwise and I don't weigh reasonability significantly but I can be convinced it matters.

K

Read Ks on the neg exclusively in hs but have become a lot more flex in college

I'm most familiar with setcol, afropess, cap and security Ks.

Links to the plan are amazing but not required - I tend to lean towards middle ground interps but direct comparison of the impacts of your model vs their model helps you when trying to refuse fiat. I tend to prefer subjectivity shifts over only this round matters but I find a lot K teams are insufficient at answering no shift or alt causes. Long overviews are a waste of time and contextualizing your offense makes me really happy - specific empirics are great link warrants.

Affs best option is to just directly answer the links and is the best perm arg you can give me. I love impact turn 2ars and most K teams aren't ready to go card for card on heg. Extinction o/ws is very convincing if you weigh the aff but answering the death K with 'being alive is a prereq' misses the mark entirely. Just because you believe extinction is prior doesn't make the aff morally bankrupt, contextualize your response to your scenarios and weigh consequences as an ethical filter. 2ar theory against the alt is great with me and often underutilized.

Kaffs

Read these all of my career. Debate is a game but how we play the game is up to you. Use your case as offense on other flows and remember that the aff is more than just an impact turn - im voting aff because I think it's a good idea not because a certain model of debate is worse.

v FW - My debate experience shows aff preference but I find my judging record to be heavily neg favored. I'm good for both sides and have been in these debates more than enough times to make the correct decision.

I prefer impact turn 2ars and am often left unconvinced on aff counter interps - they are almost always arbitrary and never solve limits. This is not to say it's an unviable strategy in front of me, but I do by a large margin prefer interps that are reasonably attached to the rez than some self-serving interp. Affs need both content and form level impact turns - smart cross applications of them win you these debates.

For the neg, sufficient defense to the impact turn usually wins you these debates. I am often unconvinced of affs pushes to deem every topical aff as violently unethical and you should exploit this. Clever TVAs and clear warrants for the possibility of good topic/policy engagement are very convincing to me. T with a strong reform good push on case almost always results in a neg ballot from me.

Fairness and clash are both impacts and can be internal links - I don't have a preference towards either but I think smart 2nrs do better by making a decision on procedural fairness vs the clash internal link turn instead of splitting time on both. If you are going for fairness the top of the 2nr should be why procedural fairness o/ws everything else.

Hello, I am Gretchen Barksdale. I’m new to judging but have a strong background in communication and rhetoric.

I appreciate confident, clear, and persuasive delivery, but substance always outweighs style. Debate is about making ideas accessible, so I expect speakers to prioritize clarity over speed or technical jargon. While strong delivery is a bonus, it won’t win the round without solid argumentation.

I value well-organized, logical arguments that are supported with analysis or examples. Regardless of the debate format, I appreciate when debaters clearly signpost their arguments and explain how they link back to the resolution or central issue.

Directly engaging with your opponent’s arguments is crucial. I want to see meaningful rebuttals and clear responses to the opposing side’s points, rather than speaking past each other.

Novice.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evidence sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, punch theory, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 0

Energy: 12

LD Total: 40

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

Hello :)

Most important takeaways from this paradigm: Be nice, have fun, be fair, and be accessible. This can be an intimidating activity and we shouldn’t discourage people from participating by being rude, homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate anything of that sort! While these are my preferences, I don't believe in absolutes so run what you want and make it your job to convince me! Also if you are doing speech you really don't need to read any of this, just be confident, be clear, and be yourself!

Again, I think you should run the arguments you feel most comfortable with regardless of what I think, but judge adaptability is important as well so if you do want to know a little bit about me then here it goes! TLDR, I love lay debate, I love fast tech debate, I can evaluate both and I don't put any bias onto either style of debate.

Background

I did parli in High School, with Newbury Park High School (go Panthers!). I currently do Parli, Extemp, IPDA, Original Speech and sometimes PF in College for UCSD (Go Tritons!). I have judged all formats of debate at advanced levels including Parli, LD, PF, and Policy.

I love politics domestically and internationally, and I love to see good comparisons to different countries with regards to different policies (comparative politics major/nerd lol).

General Notes

Tabula Rasa is not real. I am flow and obviously I will try my hardest to isolate myself to just use in round info, but I think it is a disservice if we try and pretend that we can throw all our beliefs, identities, and values out of the door for anything, including debate.

I love to see direct clash in arguments! Please signpost well, organization is key to my ballot.

I don’t like giving out my email (sorry lol) so if there’s a speech drop instead that is much preferred.

Speed

If I'm flowing on my computer I can handle a decent amount of speed, including some spreading if I have your speeches (like 350 wpm abt)but faster and I may not catch everything. If I'm on paper I may not catch everything. If both sides are chill with spreading I can hang if I have your speeches, but I don't look kindly to teams that spread their opponents out of the round. Even if you are spreading, PLEASE slow down for tags and important stuff tho. I try to make it visually clear when you’ve lost me so may be aware of that. Also, if I call clear/slow plz respect that.

Case Debate

Love case debate! Give me clear and strong links and good impact calculus (magnitude, probability, reversibility, timeframe).

Theory

I like theory/topicality of all sorts, I just want some level of proven abuse. If you want me to vote on Theory/T you should almost certainly collapse to it in the end.

Kritiks

Go for it! But also do not assume I have read any of your lit or anything so explain things clearly. I won't vote on something I don't understand. Framework is key!

Speaker Points

I think speaker points are really hard and they are so subjective, so always take them with a grain of salt (not just from me but any judge haha). That being said, I try and use a consistent scale. 27 is my baseline, anything below a 26 is reserved for misconduct or doing something harmful in the round, 28 is great, 29 is excellent, and 30 is not only a stellar performance but you had great strategy with flawless execution. I do not think a 30 should be impossible, so I am not averse to giving out some 30s, but I do think the bar should be set really high.

Final Send Off

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about my paradigm. I always welcome questions after the round once my ballot is submitted as well! Just remember that I am also human and am not a divine perfect arbiter of debate. Best of luck!!!

if i can accommodate you in any way, shape, or form, please let me know pre-round either via. email or in-person.

hi i'm samantha, she/he/they. current ndt/ceda cx debater, shoutout csuf CD! sacat.csufdebate@gmail.com include me in the chain. +.1 speaks for AFF if email chain is sent BEFORE start time.

i believe debate can be an educational activity, radical testing ground, game, or whatever the hell else you want it to be. i run policy + k so read whatever you feel comfortable with :3 i try to rely on offense/defense weighing based on my flow. i'll evaluate death/wipeout good-adjacent arguments if the warrant isn't problematic.

this paradigm is CX/policy-oriented. for ld, highly averse to judging trix (consider striking me), but would love to evaluate more phil rounds.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

debate methinks

1. policy v. policy: lowk snoozer but i digress, my rfd is typically based on a damning technical error somewhere in round rather than truth-testing.

2. Theory: i need an abuse story that makes sense. reading 7 off, winning the link debates, then going for ground loss in the 2nr is not convincing and i wish 2ars called this out more often. i expect theory to be the entire 2nr/2ar. i have high expectations for impact framing.

2.5 standards: i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness is arbitrary/nonuq.

3. policy v. CP/PIC: i find that these debates have a 90% chance of devolving into condo theory so not a fan, but i like cp 2nrs! net benefit should be top of the flow. text/functional competition debates tend to get messy so i'm more preferable to functional competition against the perm.

4. policy v. K/ALT: i enjoy interesting policy affs that win on non-util frameworks. 1off K is possibly my favorite form of debate.

5. K v. K: i like seeing goated fw arguments via standards, rotb, and c/in turns.

wtf is plan in a vacuum.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

i like:

- roadmapping the doc, i depend on the doc during constructives (i'm a rough flower) so please just vocalize if you cut/skip any cards/entire blocks. otherwise, stick to roadmap. also please stop reading tags like cards.

- slow any overviews/judge instructions/etc. i do not want to miss anything because im lazy and i like when you tell me who is winning.

- fw debate; yes competing interps!!!

- historical references.

- solid links directly in the plan text, cards, or cx. aff is bound to the content of 1ac.

- link debate>impact debate, i don't typically buy 0/100% risk.

- lbl rebuttals

- impact!!!! did they drop something?? did they make an oopsie in cx?? impact it out and iterate why i should consider it's implications!!

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you running a K? mfw ir

i have a surface-level understanding of common K theses, although i am most familiar with IR Ks (security, orientalism), setcol, nietzsche/j.p sartre lit. either way, just make sure to clearly define tech terms and have some variation of a central advocacy that posits debate as a key space. (why are you here and not on tedtalk?)

i want the debate over the aff getting the plan/impacts. i expect to have an extensive ontology + fw flow. i like seeing the ev comparison and standards debate over fw.

refer to my goat jonathan meza's kritique section for more in-depth thoughts on k debate.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

silly goose/speaks + bonus speaks

yes debate is educational but i also believe it's important to have fun so that we may continue to engage. i partake in shenanigans/silly whimsical goofy theory/procedurals but it's an uphill (yet possible) battle.

you get a 30 and partner gets a 29.9 if your entire rebuttal is just an interpretive dance (including background music of your choice). must be the entire length of a rebuttal speech time. i promise i won't tell your coach. this primarily acts as an option if you're thoroughly convinced you're cooked, but at least want some fire speaks and good fun aka make the best out of your situation. if online format, karaoke favorite song (and screenshare the lyrics so i can sing along)

+.1 speaks for a league of legends reference or if you can sneak some funny brainrot into it. (this stacks to an undisclosed limit) +.3 speaks if you reference/give a costco guys-style boom meter review in your rebuttal overview.

irregardless, i provide speaks on cx performance, case knowledge, and persuasive appeal.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

final remarks

any variation of in-round -isms, antiblackness, etc. is not tolerated + negative aura. i'll end a debate on an auto-loss and gossip to my teammates abt you. post-rounding ok but if ur mean i'm leaving :c

tldr ill vote on anything unproblematic and well-debated.

free tayk, free all settled colonies, free my mugshawty.

have fun and be good people.

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain '19-Present

I competed in policy debate for four years at McQueen High School, where I qualified to the TOC, spent two years debating at CSU Long Beach, qualifying twice to the NDT, and was part of the Trojan Debate Squad at USC for two years.

Currently, I am a debate coach for ModernBrain which means that I might have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

--

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K Aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto-vote FW. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on FW. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some kritikal debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. For the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the Aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the Aff and Neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the Aff rather than a super generic one (unless the Aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything, or if it does do something, it doesn't have a net-benefit. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification for judge kick. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible: I won't automatically judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." (Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the Aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.)

K - I mainly went for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "K hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain K as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the Aff is something the Negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the Neg wants to engage with the Aff, but they are unable to. The Aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K Affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a K against K Affs. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go for T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of K Affs don't need to be untopical, so I feel that the Neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K Affs - I love a good K Aff that is engaging. The Aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy K Affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running K Affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic. Perms are allowed by default in a method v. method debate unless I am told that they shouldn't be evaluated. I personally don't find this argument convincing. Perhaps it would be more compelling if paired with some analysis from the Aff's theory of power explaining why perms shouldn’t be allowed—though I'm not sure.

Policy Affs - Not too much to say here. If the Aff is a good idea then the Aff wins.

Trix - I'm down to judge a trix debate, but I’d like to see it done well. A truth-testing framework with a solid reason why the resolution is false can make for some really fun rounds. The issue with trix is that a lot of arguments are overly pedantic and can be answered with simple warrants. I’ll vote on any trix argument presented, but some require more explanation than others. If a poorly warranted trix argument gets dropped, I’m comfortable cross-applying arguments from another flow to resolve it.

Phil - I studied political philosophy in college, so I’m open to discussions on the ancient Greeks, social contract theorists, or whatever. Just make sure it’s explained well.

--

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate - especially because we're really lucky as a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. For me, debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me a better advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC.I've completely changed my views on competition and it's for the best. Debate isa place where you can activate your agency and everyone is in debate for different reasons.

Let's work on making the community a better place than when we found it. Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. :')

Judging preferences - Summary

UPDATE: please ask me how many rounds I've judged...If it's more than 5 back-to-back rounds, please ignore the rest of this document and just treat me like a lay judge... (If I ever judge 15 back-to-back double-flighted debate rounds again I may lose it.) Also if i look angry im just locked in im so sorry lol

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost clearly. Always. Literally I can’t judge you properly if you’re not signposting.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD bc of status quo and whatnot. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

Big LD prefs:

I want a value and a value criterion please. Idc if there’s policies in the case itself, but I typically weigh the debate on the values provided bc LD is a values debate, after all. I like theory in LD more than in PF or parli, and will entertain the idea more. I'm more truth over theory unless the theory is rlly good. please don't waste my time and your opponent's time with time suck args.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. Furthermore, if you do spread - there better be signposting and pauses/changes in speed to emphasize that you are changing gears/moving onto what part of the road map you’re on. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread to spread, become a policy debater.

Flow Style is typically on paper bc I’m old school like that, so if you're speaking so fast/spreading without pauses in a way that I can't shorthand write it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Plans are fun! I love a good plan! Call me Senator Elizabeth Warren the way I love a good plan. (Emphasis on a good plan.) Just remember that plans aren’t legal in all debate events.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. It’s just not that serious. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, and they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much. They just bore me.

Email for chains: Leamulanc@gmail.com

About me:

Assistant Coach at Los Osos High School
Former Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
Donuts D. Roberts Coach
CHSSA Board Member
CBSR VP of Speech
Informative kid yrs ago and other stuff
Frequently hungry and/or sleepy in round

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy debates that focus on content and flow over rules and details. I am convinced by logical arguments that have a clear structure and cite evidence and supporting materials. Since I am not an expert on the rules of debate, attempting to weaken your opponent’s argument with technicalities will likely not be effective for me. I have a great time listening to all of the debaters and I will be very engaged and will be taking copious notes. Please speak slowly and clearly, and have fun!

I am new judge for LD and only have once before judged speech. I do not like spreading, as even with your document it makes it extremely hard for me to judge you fairly. All cards are good, but I generally like specific statistics that prove your point. Please be kind to your competitor or I will mark you down. Debate is supposed to be fun and educational!

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Hello!

I was a past debater for about three years, specializing in LD, but I have done both PuFo and Parli as well. I do flow and base a lot of the round on the flow, so please be good with signposting! Treat me kind of like a lay judge, over explain if you want, and tell me where you are on the flow during speeches. As far as pronouns go I use any, feel free to state yours if comfortable.

Not a fan of spreading/super fast talking, I can flow fast if need be but I'd prefer not to as I'll likely miss some arguments. Also not a big fan of kritiks and off-topic arguments. I was always a traditional debater- pen and paper- so adding more policy takes to LD makes it harder on me since I'm not a big fan of the two colliding at all. Traditional > circuit debate.

I hate kritiks, only run them if you have clear and concise links and explanations. I can’t understand spreading, PLEASE treat me as a lay judge. Plans and counterplans I can attempt to follow if they’re explained thoroughly and argued well. If not, don’t run it. Seriously, I was a traditional debater. I do not understand circuit stuff.

I put a lot of focus on the value/value criterion debate so please go philosophical and hit me hard with it!! Connect your case and contentions deeply with your framework and impacts. Speaking of impacts, state them clearly, please!!!

If you have questions before the round feel free to ask! All in all, focus on having a respectful debate.

I have been judging debate for the past two years. I enjoy LD when the debate stays on topic. I expect students to be professional, assertive and confident in what they are saying. I do NOT like spreading and I will instantly tune out if you start to spread. When judging the argument, I look for who can persuade me and provide research based evidence to support in their argument. I am big on data and research that can be backed up by experts, not personal opinions. Please do not ask me who won at the end of the round! I do not make my final decision until I review my notes and you leave the room.

I was a college debater and speaker at UC San Diego until I graduated in 2024. I now help coach the Oceanside HS Speech and Debate Team.

In debate, I want people to emphasize to me why their impacts are more important than their opponent's, while diligently interacting with your opponent's argument. I only consider things mentioned in the round, so never assume I already know something.

I want to be able to understand you while talking, so I will rate you worse if you are speeding. As my old coach would say, "No auctioneer ever won an argument."

I also pay attention to dropped arguments if your opponent points it out. If you're going to collapse your case, I want to hear why it is the most important part.

Have fun and be kind to your opponents.

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

I’m a fairly new judge, my speaking preference is simple—speak clearly. As long as I can understand you, I’m happy. I’ll be taking account of both sides argument, but I’m most also looking for how you present yourself as a debater. I don’t hold any bias when it comes to debates, and my vote will be on whoever is the better debater. Besides that, I look forward to judging and watching the debates.

No spreading, please. If you must spread, I must be able to follow your arguments and evidence - that is how I will make my decision.

Please cite evidence to back up arguments and include sources with dates.

Quick off time road maps are OK. Be respectful please of your opponent.

Thank you!

(they/she)

add me to the email chain: krizelbrianne13@gmail.com :D email chain > speech drop/file share

about me: CSUF Policy Debate. Interp/Platform Coach. Please don't call me judge, call me Krizel!

ppl that influence the way i think about debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Kwudjwa (the goat), Vontrez, Elvis Pineda, JMeza

shout out: Kyleen, CN Forensics, CSUF Forensics

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

I have a 0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc. I will not hesitate to intervene when I feel it is necessary.

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

specifics:

general notes:

- if you have more than 4 off i am asking you for paper

- i'm fine w spreading, but be clear for analytics. i have trouble processing audio and will yell CLEAR up to 3 times

- tldr: debate is a game. it's up to you how you play it

DA/CP:

- impact framing please; explain the internals and why the DA o/w on timeframe

- functional > textual comp

- if you kick out, answer residual offense

Ks:

- articulate the alt; if i don't know what it does, i'm more inclined to vote presumption

- the lit I know best are set/col, transnational/decolonial fem, and cap. i know the basis for most popular critical lit, but these are args i personally have run, so i know the ins and outs.

- Questions I need answers to: what are we debating about? role of the judge? of the ballot? why should i prefer over terminal impacts?

- you can also refer to meza’s paradigm for more of my thoughts on k debate!

KAFFs:

- kaffs are cool but i need reasons as to why we should shift the focus of the topic and how the aff actually departs from the squo

- performance ks are cool, but if you are bending the traditional ways of debate, i need reasons to prefer

- in KvKs, i just need a clear story

K v. T/FW:

- ks need to answer all impacts of T

- if i don't know how the kaff departs from the squo, i am more inclined to vote on presumption

- a carded TVA would be nice

- impact framing is important to me in these debates. explain the internals.

- take up the ontology debate.

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

FOR LD:

- i'm not as knowledgeable on phil debates, so i don't think that i'm the best for evaluating it; in terms of running it, i'm a phil major so i know what most philosophers are saying, i just need clear explanations and judge instruction to know how i am applying it to the round.

- on trix: i'm not against them, but i'm not voting on silly theory

- when it comes to framing and you two have diff values and value criterion, have a debate about why I should prefer your framing. if you have diff definitions, take up the definitions debate. leaving it up to me is a coin flip!

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

tl;dr: debate well! have good vibes.

I look for clarity above all else, so roadmap every speech clearly and walk me thoroughly through all link chains. Beyond that, just have fun!

I did PF in high school, I mostly did IPDA/NPDA in college.

GENERAL

My ballot comes down to keeping this atmosphere fair, fun, and educational. If a strategy is within those lines you should be good.

I don't prefer speed. Additionally, if one side is not comfortable with speed, you shouldn't be going fast. That being said, if both sides are cool with speed and I am made aware of that I won't tank speaker points.

Signpost where you are going ("Responding to their contention 1..." "Their x card says y..."). Try and stay in chronological order and take care of top of case argumentation first.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.

I appreciate a good narrative. Tell your story how you want to.

Theory: I'll vote on it. I'll also toss aside frivolous theory if given a reason to. Default competing interps but will buy into reasonability.

Kritiks: Run them if you want. I appreciate K's with cool alts that have some sort of solvency. If its confusing, the round is probably not fun for your opponents and likely won't get my vote.

Counterplans: Cool. Will assume they are unconditional unless you give a very good reason otherwise.

PF

My RFD will most likely include the framework debate. If a framework isn't fair: tell me what their framework is, why it isn't fair, give a different framework, and why this new framework is better. I would prefer to not listen to a topicality debate though so -> If you can win on both frameworks presented, do that.

Please include neat voters in FF ("The easiest way to vote for the affirmative is...").

LD

I never did LD but I do appreciate a good value debate. Make sure your value is intertwined with your narrative.

Parli

While I do appreciate some evidence in parli, I will prefer logical argumentation in this event. Make some good POIs but I will probably end up voting on the speeches themselves.

Congress

Give a unique, fun speech. I appreciate the rp as a congressmember but don't get too caught up on that. I prefer one good speech to two mediocre ones so don't feel the need to game recency.

Focus on having good decorum. Be respectful of those asking/answering your questions. Quips are cool as long as they are not ad hominem (if you have to ask yourself, don't say it).

Policy

Never did policy but I will respect the event and flow however the round goes. My general preferences will still mostly apply, however.

Speech

In general I don't have any preferences for speech. In impromptu, however, I prefer speeches that fall in line with the name of the event and will place those over any canned speeches.

Hello! I have served as a judge for competitions for two years and this is my third year.

I value a clear and well organized case.

While debaters are encouraged to engage intellectually with their opponents, I have no patience for poor sportsmanship. Please remember it's your opponent's job to dissect and poke holes into your case. That's not personal.

Finally, I enjoy when competitors use all of their available time to support their case or examine their competition's case in a meaningful way.

I am the LD coach at Loyola.

I have coached traditional and circuit LD for over 30 years and am comfortable judging most rounds—having judged at many Circuit tournaments, elim rounds, and even TOC finals.

That said, I am NOT one of the coaches who is super familiar with ALL of the arguments that are currently in vogue. What does that mean? You make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you, because I happen to know what argument you’re trying to make. And I don’t have “preconceived” notions of how certain arguments are “generally” evaluated by circuit judges nowadays. What you’ll get is a fresh/independent/flow-based look by an impartial judge on those arguments. I don’t have the benefit of knowing how those debates are SUPPOSED to come out.

I can handle spread, but NOT if you’re incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable. If you want to include me on an email chain that helps.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and will generally NOT like to vote on undeveloped blips. I like making my decision based on the issues that are the most developed on the flow. I will, however, vote on a clear drop of an important argument. In situations where the round is unresolveable, I will not force a decision for either side based on arguments/extensions that really are not on the flow or fill in the gaps with my own opinion. I like voting for the side that requires the least judge intervention and, if that's not possible, I will vote for the better debater in terms of technique and delivery.

I can follow along with any level of speed and technical language, but I consider the excessive use of jargon and excessive delivery speed to be tools of obfuscation rather than persuasion. I take notes continually and listen carefully, and do not need a document shared with me as my focus will be on what is delivered in each speech. Argument and style are inextricably linked. While speakers may have a range of delivery skills, the substance of an argument cannot be separated from the style of its creation. Form and style of delivery are key components of how an argument works.

I appreciate when a speaker clearly and convincingly ties their contentions to a central value/framework, and can distinguish between their opponent's central points and any attempts made to distract from the central issue. It is helpful, considerate, and effective when a debater gives clear and reasoned description of their line of thinking as well as a clear and reasoned explanation of the logical flaws in an opponent's argument. I expect speakers to keep track of time and all technical matters pertaining to a round, and to conduct themselves with professionalism and respect for one another and the discipline of speech and debate.

It is not my practice to disclose my decision and reasoning, as I prefer to synthesize my notes with some quiet reflection immediately following the flight. At the end of the round, I will thank all parties and leave without explanation.

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Email: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Claremont, UCLA, Peninsula

1. Offense-defense. Every argument will be evaluated probabilistically, except for ‘we meet’. I do not vote on presumption or permissibility.

2. Technical debating matters most. I prefer judging debates with arguments that are well-researched and specific to the topic. I still vote for arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, usually because the team answering them makes an error.

3. Arguments must make sense. I could not explain why the possibility that an evil demon exists is a reason to vote for either side. Similarly, I could not explain why it's good to require the Aff to provide a solvency advocate for the neg in the 1ac.

I am a first year at Chapman University majoring in Health Sciences and playing Water Polo. In high school, I competed in speech, however I have never judged debate before but I am super excited to try and learn from you all and this experience. While I know the basics of debate, I might not be familiar with specific terms or phrases that are not commonly used.

I believe as a judge that whatever my opinions may be on topics, I will only judge based on argument quality. A team that is the best will be well versed with both sides of the topic.

I prefer a clear speaker that explains their points and counter-points well. The speakers should also exude confidence while speaking.

So excited to judge this weekend!

Hi! My name is Emme and I am currently a freshman at UCSD.

Contact

I prefer SpeechDrop or the Tab file share... but email chain works if that's what you're most comfortable with (be warned my email is super super slow though)

Email: elay@ucsd.edu

Preferences/Misc.

I debated for Immaculate Heart for 3 years (2021-2024).

I mostly read policy arguments but am pretty good for Ks and phil if you actually know what you’re reading and can handle CX/explain what you read well. I love good, clever weighing. Mostly tech>truth but can be persuaded either way. I think truth is super important but I need the debater to bring up truth in order for it to outweigh tech OTHERWISE I feel too interventionist as a judge.

I can evaluate all common args but I really do not like tricks or hidden ASPEC or anything like that. Look at other Immaculate Heart judges for more on this - while I will flow these args I will probably not vote on them unless severely mishandled (i.e. If they’re dropped I’ll vote on them but don’t read them as a cheap shot to win against a novice).

Please be clear! <3 I am decent at flowing but if you are incoherent I will not be able to properly get down all your args. Clarity and quality over quantity of args read - but if you can read 8 off and still be clear I support that. I prefer to flow on paper so keep that in mind.

CX is binding. I love a good CX exchange BUT be kind to your opponent. I really respect debaters who can get their opponent to give them the answers/links they need in CX while being cordial and not condescending.

Be nice in round and out! Being nice will def boost your speaks in front of me. Don’t be rude/try to intimidate new debaters. Debate should be fun! So try and make it an enjoyable and educational experience for both you and your opponent.

I think disclosure is good! And conditionality... most of the time.

I am a parent judge and 2024 will be my first assignment. I was not involved with debate in my school days but have been following them for the last few months. Organization, clarity, execution and teamwork are the things I will be looking for along with the tournament rules to cast my vote. Looking forward to hearing great arguments from everyone. Good Luck.

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

Here's my judging stats.

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

Cross-ex is a speech with limited time constraints; you can ask silly questions during prep but I won't flow them or think about them.

Cordiality is good and important. Stealing prep is bad and I'll obliterate your points.

For LD/CX:

I've been rated the second worst flow-er on the Emory debate team (@micah). Take that as you will.

I don't feel that I have robust ideological views about debate, and I find that most paradigms ultimately become a lecture about how people think debate works and why you should debate that way in front of them. I am certainly unqualified to explain what particular T argument is the most compelling and why, that being said, I think you should debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability as the debaters have told me to. I do have some 'warnings' that you may find germane to how I make my decisions usually.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

I tend to think debate is good because of clash, otherwise it's not debate.

I dislike blips. I tend to think that a winning argument requires an investment of time, and would prefer to vote on the core of the round.

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations is a tab question; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and bad for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

--

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research.

--

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com andnethmindebate@gmail.com (please add both)

--

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

on a related note, i will never flow from the speech document.

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

--

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

--

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list my argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments. Example: If Neg runs a conditional CP, and Aff says condo bad, I’m probably erring Neg if Neg just makes the standard responses to that shell. If they fumble it, I’m fine voting Aff.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.). Another important thing to note: if you’re Neg, and Aff doesn’t run a plan, you’re probably not going to win if you run a counterplan. Just read specification theory instead.

Style: Keep roadmaps short. Speed is fine as long as you send everyone your doc and you enunciate. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on it. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Don’t assume that I’m familiar with your literature base, because I’m probably not. I understand how Ks function, and I hit them a few times in high school, but don’t read a thousand layers of dense philosophy and assume I’ll get it.

It’s hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework, but it can be done. I don’t vote for most kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

I am a layperson/judge. I participated in debate during HS (policy) in the late 1980s, with success at several national tournaments. I have been judging various speech events over the past two years. I value clarity and logic, and look forward to judging more events. If I appear confused, consider readdressing the point.

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
My GOATs: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Vontrez, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

I am probably considered a clash judge, (Policy v K) and (K v FW) are my favorite type of debates but I don’t mind evaluating (K v K) or Policy throwdowns. Theory and Phil debates hold a soft spot in my heart.

specific thoughts:

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: big fan. Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: Trix your heart out but be clear and let me know what im voting on.

Speaks:I give them fr.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I do not flow off the document.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I am a first year at Chapman University majoring in Chemistry and playing water polo. I have never judged Speech and Debate before, but I competed in We the People in high school. I am very excited to learn from this experience and hear what you all have to say.

I will disregard my own opinions and only judge based on argument quality. A team that is well versed with both sides of the topic and has the strongest argument will the best team.

Additionally, speakers should be clear and confident while speaking. I might not be familiar with specific terms and phrases that are not commonly used but given the context of the argument I should be able to figure it out. Speakers should also explain their points and counterpoints well.

I'm so excited to judge this weekend!

I am a new judge to speech and debate tournaments. I will judge participants based off the content of their speeches, the level of academic language they utilize, and their ability to accurately present their thoughts in a meaningful manner.

I am a first year parent judge and my daughter is competing in Lincoln Douglas debate for the second time. Please speak clearly. I like to hear a clear criterion and I want to hear your arguments linked to that weighing mechanism. Please avoid jargon and I find plans abusive and limiting to good academic debate.

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at Cal (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

Process Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with these. God knows I went for them way too often in high school. However, I am very charitable to affirmative perms that test the germaneness of the net benefit.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

arthur.v.qin@gmail.com

Debate is offense-defense.

Everything is probabilistic.

You can win the full weight of a dropped argument and easily still lose the debate.

I invite postrounding. I will be brutally honest, and if I screwed up, I will admit it too.

Terrible carded arguments can be beaten by smart analytics.

For LD: I did policy for seven years and won't know anything LD specific

I value clear, logically reasoned arguments delivered at a comprehendible speed. Signposting is excellent. Pithy and unique turns of phrase are a definite plus. Eye contact, tonal modulations, and a sense of your personality are all important.

An unusual, thought-provoking case is always appreciated provided you can back it up with facts/logical reasoning, and you're not working way outside of the box. Ontological arguments, for example, are often not particularly persuasive.

General

Assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School.

Speechdrop (I guess fileshare now) >> Email

Email: ssanchez2024@ihs.immaculateheart.org

Preferences (Short)

1-policy, T

2/3-theory

3- Phil, K's

No-tricks, friv theory, death good, etc

Misc
- GO SLOW. GO SLOW. GO SLOW. I am begging for you to be clear. I am a very slow flower and I will give an rfd that I didn't hear the argument so I did not vote for it. I have done it before and I’ll do it again. This more important online!

- Must stake the round for clipping (need a recording) and ev ethics.

- Clarification questions about what your opponent read is CX or prep.

- Rehighlightings are fine but be cautious

- Please do impact calc or at the very least tell me the impact if I don’t know what it is in the 2NR/2AR I don’t know why I should vote for you.I keep voting against people solely because of this and it could be easily solved in five seconds

- If you are winning the round and you do not need to take extra time (and you don't) I will boost speaks

- If you have any questions about my paradigm you can ask me before the round!

- Prep ends when you send the doc.

Have fun!

"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:

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating (ESPECIALLY) if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump. I am not asking for a conversation speed debate, I am asking for you to be sow enough that you are clear. If that is super fast, good for you. If that is slower, sorry but that's the speed you should go.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

8. AI-generated cards are an auto -2.5 speaker points. This is embarrassing.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way too hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

LD (Lincoln Douglas – Debate) Paradigm

Prefer non-spread.

Prefer a normal (or slightly fast) speaking pace (too fast could potentially result in missing some discussion points being made).

Asking questions before starting is ok (good).

Self-timing is allowed (no issue).

Spectators allowed (only per tournament rules/guidelines).

Respectfulness goes a long way.

LD - items being looked for:

• Analysis – the argument presented is defined, supported and convincing.
• Evidence – reasonably applied and organized to easily follow along.
• Reasoning – linked to evidence, even if reasonably applied as an interpretation of the evidence.
• Refuting / Rebuttal – reasonable and convincing.
• Delivery – systematic and easy to follow along.
• Sportsmanship / Respectfulness / Professionalism.

Bonus note – refrain from using the term “you” when addressing your opponent.

My email is tjdebate08@gmail.com

please label the email chain tournament name + round #

General Judging

I'm cool with tag teaming, though I think both speakers should do their best to answer individually

Spreading- I'm okayish with it tho I would appreciate it if there was an emphasis on taglines/main arguments (like slowing down during certain stuff, raising voice etc). Keep in mind I flow on paper,,

I will reference evidence documents for throughout the speech, but i will not be looking in depth at it unless im told to by debaters

Run what you like, I am familiar with the types of arguments you make however, I am not familiar with this topic specifics so if it's a niche argument don't assume I know it.

I will not do any work for you, make my life easy, simplify and tell me what im voting on.

I do consider cross ex as a type of speech in the way i am viewing and framing your arguments

(I will give higher speaks if you can provide clear judge instruction.)

Specific Policy Arguments

Policy sometimes overwhelms me so please try to simplify/slow down especially in rebuttal speeches.

On Condo bad: I'm more willing to vote, for it if the negative runs more than 5 or more off. I just prefer having in depth debates.

T: Not the best judge for policy t vs policy t however I do think that limits is a key component in debate because it does result in the type of education we recieve in round and certain arguments can affect a teams ground.

Tech over truth but keep in mind I'm more lenient toward the truth than most.

Counterplan- I like these most when the net benefits are weighed in the round, so not so much a one sentence counterplan with no evidence. A personal pet peeve is when that one sentence counter plan ends up dropped by the block

DA- impact calc pls make my decision easy also the LINKKK explain it

K/K Affs

Generally Im good with most k literature i've run racial cap k, set col, epistemic abolition/ anarchism . Though while I am familiar with most literature, high theory ks can still be really tricky to follow through so just try to explain please

For Negative Ks : Try to be familiar with your literature, and try to articulate how the aff links, not just generically. If you can label your links and impact them throughout the speech your chances of winning are higher. Also answer why the aff doesnt get a perm? Why is the aff a bad idea? Impact it out

For K affs specifically: I'm cool with you but please be ready to defend framework well because I want to understand why you think this approach is more beneficial to the debate space and why your education matters.

For both k/ k affs: Explain your alternative. Do not dodge around the question its okay not to be material and focus on education but explain the WHY and defend. Or if you are a material alt explain.

Fw= I value education and portable skills.

LD

No tricks, please.

Take a breath before you debate and do your best! you got this!

What an absolute pleasure to watch, listen and learn from these phenomenal young people. It is such a privilege to participate.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

--------------------------------------

For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff

--------------------------------------

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

--------------------------------------

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

--------------------------------------

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

--------------------------------------

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

--------------------------------------

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence.

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching circuit & trad LD, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

Some thoughts on specifics:

• ROB/ROJ! Are we having a debate about debate? survival? education? models of debate? what does my ballot do/signal/endorse/affirm? make that clear

Policy v K: I judge a lot of clash debates so these are probably the rounds where I give the most in-depth feedback. I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

• The link debate- Contextualized/specific links are best (pls), link analysis is key, and don't fall behind on the perm debate. (Yes, severance is bad on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to impact it out)

• The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, pls spend time explaining & contextualizing the alt in the block! help me be able to visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: I love a method v method debate, but clarity is key to keep the debate from becoming messy or difficult to evaluate (especially in LD bc time constraints) so please focus on creating an organized story.

• I'm well-read in many different areas of critical theory, but I still wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF (how did u interpret the lit?)

• I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me. ESPECIALLY if it's a creative/fun/unique AFF or K, I'm here for it. (also refer to note above about examples of the alt/method)

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts bc debate is ultimately a performance, and education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate.

• The AFF needs to explain the relationship the aff has to negation and adjudication, that's what defines this activity (unless you present a counter model, which I am also here for!)

• I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models) but I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn

• Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical," so arguments like (procedural) fairness aren't an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are persuasive args to me). You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.

I am a first year judge.
I prefer a loud, medium pace , and clear speakers.

Parent judge.

Please speak clearly and loud enough for me to hear you.

Please be respectful.

Please do not just read.

Please stay on topic.

No spreading. It is okay to talk at a quicker rate but remember that I need to understand you. If I do not understand you, it doesn't matter if you make the better arguments.

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

I debated at Peninsula from 2019 to 2023 and now debate at Emory and coach for Peninsula, OCSA and Archbishop Mitty.

Do not pref me if you are toxically masculine.

I do NOT flow from the speech documents post-1nc. I will usually start flowing at the 1nc on the case.

Tech over truth but arguments must be clear and complete upon introduction. That means they must clearly provide a warranted reason to vote for you or against the other team. Common practices that do not meet this threshold include embedded theory arguments, floating piks, laundry-list impact evidence, DAs that fail to establish causality and counterplans that lack solvency and/or mechanism explanation.

My only strong opinion is that clash and research are good. I am worse than most for strategies that are not reflective of the topic literature and are instead reliant on debate techne & clash evasion. This is not to say that you should radically alter your strategy in the pre-round if I am judging you, nor imply that contrived topicality arguments, process counterplans & exclusive framework interpretations are unwinnable, but to be transparent that I may not be the optimal judge for teams whose pre-tournament preparation consists primarily of writing blocks rather than cutting cards.

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.