brandon.v.garcia@gmail.com

May your heart be your guiding key, I say it all the time. You ultimately need to do what your heart feels is right.

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

--CX/LD--

-Email me your speeches at lin.andy@berkeley.edu

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose you speaker points.

-Spreading is fine, but if you're incoherent I'll let you know only after your speech ends so watch yourself.

-I'm fine with any argument, and I'll almost always weigh tech>>truth, but you'll have a harder time convincing me of the solvency of your kritik alt than with a well-argued disad. If you lose the solvency debate on the kritik, I'm going to treat it like a very weak disad.

-If you read a k-aff, I will default debate is a game unless you convince me otherwise.

-If the flow is unreadable and there isn't enough clash on either side, I will default neg - the 2AR has a chance to clean up while the neg doesn't.

-If you clip cards, that's an immediate loss and zero speaker points.

I'm extremely flow-oriented. Good clash and line-by-line will make your rounds 10x more winnable with me. If there's clash, good weighing will also be necessary to win debates, you'll make me very happy if you do good impact calc on every flow.

Theory- I'll judge theory debates based on the flow, but will ignore it altogether if an in-round impact isn't substantiated. (I always enjoy a well-argued Topicality argument, however.) Don't flood the debate with a laundry list of theory offense though because it will immediately lose you speaks and potentially the round because I'm much less inclined to weigh any of it.

History- I debated for 3 years in Highschool and am starting debate in college as a 2N. I am, however, currently unfamiliar with the literature in this year's topic so I will be judging your evidence on substance rather than otherwise staple tagline arguments.

--Parliamentary/Congress--

-please don't read topicality unless you think it's a very convincing and easy sell. Specifically for parliamentary, I think it's almost always a waste of time.

-Points of privilege and points of order are unlikely voting points for me

-Spreading is fine, but clarity should be prioritized

-If you have time, answer POI's or I'll probably dock points.

-One well-supported link chain is better than several convoluted ones.

Eliana McLaughlin

Debated 4 years at CK.McClatchy (2023) - SUDL

Currently debating for UC Davis (2027)

pmo the chain: elianagracemclaughlin@gmail.com

--

tldr/

tech > truth

Do whatever it is you do best. My paradigm is short because I vote for anything. With that being said, I will try my best to flesh out my inevitable biases below. While in high school, I largely went for the K on both the aff and neg. I would say I am pretty comfortable with a large body of literature, specifically; settlerism, cap, fem, Baudrillard, and cybernetics. That being said, I am perfectly comfortable judging policy rounds.

Judge instruction in 2ar/2nr is incredibly important and will play a huge role in my decision-making

Pls don't go rapid fire speeding through your analytics --

My evaluations are limited to the flow, I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round

--

some specifies/

Kritiks:

Aff- go for it. If you go for an impact turn to T without a c/i, then you need to win offense against model v model rounds/explain why the debate is bad. I find that c/i often loses to limits the majority of the time. Winning your impact by turning their model of debate/debates under the rez while proving that you maintain some form of debatability is probably the quickest way to my ballot. Know your lit!!!

Neg—I largely went for settlerism but am comfortable judging anything. I am a huge fan of a very contextualized, robust link story that turns case coupled with judge instruction—frame my ballot. You probably will not win without some form of in-depth case debate.

FW:

Fairness is either an impact or an internal link

Case debate is still very much necessary in these rounds

Da / CP:

I'm good for these debates. The most important aspect of these debates is probably judging instruction/ impact calc. Don't stop at “disad turns the case” - explain the broad stroke implication of that claim through comparative impact calc. evidence quality is realll important

If you can help it don't go for CP theory

debating at UC Davis

4 years policy @ sonoma ‘22

not currently coaching

add me to the email chain: mateodebates@gmail.com

general—

do whatever you do best.i don’t have strong preconceptions about arguments. i have gone for kritical arguments in most of my debates but have coached policy arguments.

ks—

go for it. i have gone for the K in most of my debates. link specificity is important.

das—

obviously fine. do impact calc.

cps—

cool. i particularly like advantage CPs.

fw—

i would say I’m pretty neutral here. i ran K affs for most of high school and wrote a ton of them, but i will easily vote either way based on the round. i believe the topic likely has some pedagogical value and some orientation is probably good, but what that orientation is can be contested.

I am an old school policy debater. The kind that used tape, scissors and highlighters to cut evidence. I debated at Wichita State Univerity in Kansas, went to the NDT twice and broke at CEDA Nats. I coached college debate at Chico State and judged for several years.

I was a 1A and 2N. I expect a clean flow and lots of sign posting. I dont like prep time stealing, be considerate of when you are prepping. I am probably started running your clock already. I flow on paper with two different colored pens, I am that old. I try to keep up with what you are saying when you speak fast, thats fine with me. I will tell you when to slow down or if I cant understand you, but I am not your mom, you need to listen and adapt. I will make faces and give you some signs that I understand or I am listening or I have no idea where you are on the flow. When I put my hands up like, where are you, i really mean, where are you, and at some point i will just start flowing on a new piece of paper, so i have your arguments, but that means that they are not getting applied correctly, and that is your fault, so if you dont like the decision that is your bad.

I am an environmental lawyer. I like impact calculations. I like topicality. I am a bureacrat and proud of it. I like rules, I try and follow them in life and i think you should too. I will entertain arguments that my ballot means something outside of the round, but honestly after seeing thousands of debates I understand that it is the totality of the experience and not the individual round that really matters. I will never say that I wont listen to an argument, I will listen to anything that you have to share and you have researched. And I will vote for things that I dont agree with because that is how the game is played.

I have been participating in debate for over 35 years and that gives me some perspective. I love this activity, I love what it teaches and the hope that it inspires. I have met my best friends in this activity and people who I think have changed the world for the better. I believe in the goodness of people within this activity and I hope that you do to. Treat each other kindly and dont be a jerk. Life is a series of awkward moments strung together by eating and sleeping, embrace it, admit when you are wrong, and figure out how to get yourself out a jam in a debate round, you cant win everything, pick and choose what you can win and have the tenacity to go for it. Good luck and dont be afraid to ask me any questions. Add my email to the in round thread: kristi.morioka@gmail.com

Hagannoyes02@gmail.com

Nothing on this topic yet, Teach it to me

I was a pretty decent debater Ill prob be fine for whatever you want, Please do what you do best, whether its the policy or the K strat. I was mad k hack senior year, keep that in mind.

2as I wanna see some saucy cross applications or something

2ns I just wanna hear you not let the 2ar get away with anything

While reading blocks please make it about the debate with some in round articulation on both sides. If you read the same block in the 2nc and the 2nr I will dissolve your speaker points I don't care how good it is.

Please drop some clear as day line by line on me.

If you give your 2ar/2nr without blocks I will be very happy.

If you run K args you don't understand, stop. But your welcome to ask me any weird k questions after the round.

Write my ballot in your 2nr/2ar

Please dont debate down, instead answer the best version of their argument even if they didn't say it.

Give me some saucy sketchy counterplan debates please.

I dont want to hear the psychoanalysis blocks your team wrote 4 years ago.

If you run procedurals no one has ever heard of I'm gonna have a very high threshold for you going for it and a low threshold for their answer as well as giving you crappy speaker points because no one wants to see that.

Drop some examples I've never heard of, specific ones, maybe others then our friends at the k lab gave us

Please someone go for Buddhism. If you do it bad tho I will be a sad bro.

I dont like to see unnecessary putdowns or unreasonable arrogance but I little competition is good.

I want to see everyone working during all prep, there's always something more you can do.

I also need an explanation for why fairness is good.

I also need your k aff to have a solvency advocate.

I want your evidence to be of top quality, but the quality doesn't matter if you don't reference the warrents, I will read what needs to be read and will probably read most of the cards

13 off kills the trees, if you do they better be real

I will get mad if your disads have uncarded tagline link chains,

if you feel the need to postround me, bring it but know this isn't an objective activity and its not personal

Give me some unique flames you have up your sleeve

Have fun, don't stress, don't stress out your partner, just chilax and vibe

Make me laugh. Make your oppents laugh.

Go get the W

ssander@polydebate.org

Pronouns: he/him or they/them

Affiliations: Regent Legacy Academy

School strikes: Polytechnic School

Guidance for all debate activities:

Please be nice to each other. Be aware that disrespectful and discourteous behavior will result in me lowering your speaker points. I see speaker points as a way to discourage that kind of behavior.

I won't vote for you and will attempt to give you the lowest speaker points/ranking possible if you use hate speech *1 or advocate for nazism. So I guess you could say that I'm not a "tabula rasa" judge in the strict sense of the term.

Present a clear, convincing case for why you should win the debate in your rebuttal speeches. Don't expect me to do the work connecting the dots for you. Generally speaking, overviews before the line-by-line are a good place to do this work. Basically, if I have to do a lot of work to unravel who won the debate, I'm gonna be a bit displeased.

Please don't be cringe and try to steal prep time. Please keep track of each other's speech times as well as your own, as well as your own prep time.

Please don't hesitate to speak up and ask, if you have any specific questions before the debate begins! I usually like to wait until all the competitors are present before answering questions about my paradigm, so everyone has the benefit of hearing my answer at the same time, and can ask any follow-up questions.

Thank you and good luck!

Policy:

I consider myself a competent flow judge who is fine with speed as long as I can understand you. *2

When I flow, I'll typically write a summarized interpretation of your tag line, the author's name and the date of the publication, and any key warrants or words I hear you say. And when you make analytical arguments, I'll write a summarized version of it. If I think you're saying something impactful, and you're saying it slowly enough, I'll flow every word you say. Basically, I'm going to try my hardest to rely on the debaters' analyses of their own, and each others', evidence and warrants, to resolve the debate. If you force me to read the speech doc and compare evidence after the debate has ended, you did something wrong, and there's a good chance you're not going to like my decision.

If neither team presents framework arguments, I default to evaluating which team did a better job debating their side of the resolution.

I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments in the sense that I think the negative needs to present a convincing case of why they win the interp vs. counter-interp, violation, standards, and voters debates on T.

I typically evaluate most arguments in the debate using an offense-defense paradigm. I'm usually going to default to giving the aff a risk of solvency and the neg a risk of their DA if there are not any turns on the flow. It's gonna be up to you, the debaters, to do the impact calc. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me. Let me take the easy way out!

LD:

Fine with speed. See the first paragraph above for more detail. Generally speaking, I'll evaluate the topic in the context of whichever side wins the value/value-criterion debate.

Endnotes:

*1 Not going to attempt to propose an all-encompassing definition of what constitutes hate speech. I will be relying on a "I know it when I see it" approach.

*2 If I can't understand you, I will say, "clear," once during your speech. If I can't understand you, I will not be recording any of your arguments onto my flow for the duration that you cannot be understood. If it isn't too much to ask, could you please start your first speech relatively slowly and gradually pick up speed? That allows me to get used to your voice and manner of speaking. Thank you!

You can view a prior version of my paradigm here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180503224814/https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sander%2C+Steven

Much of that is still at least somewhat relevant and applicable.

Umar Shaikh

Debated at James Logan High School

Debating at UC Davis

Currently Coaching: Berk Prep and Head Royce

Email Chain: umardebate@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

--TLDR--

You do you, anything goes, if you can debate/explain it I'll vote on it.

Judge Instruction: Write the ballot for me. Good judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr will always be rewarded with high speaks and likely the ballot.

Read the K my whole debate career

If you have questions about specific arguments email me or talk to me preround

Don't speak loudly during your opponent's speeches, its rude and makes it impossible to flow. Do it and I will nuke your speaks.

--Specifics--

Preference

1. K v Policy, Policy v K - most comfortable in these rounds, pref me high. Go for fairness, say heg is good, I could care less.

2. K v K - perm is pretty op can't lie

3. Policy v Policy - least comfortable in these but have been judging quite a few of them lately for some reason. I likely will not be the most qualified judge for this in super high-level rounds but I will do my best to make the correct decision. Most comfortable with DAs, T, and CPs in that order. Please SLOW DOWN on analytics and generally overexplain things you believe to be intuitive as I am likely seeing it for the first time. Reasonability is arbitrary.

4. Theory - Most of these debates are annoying to judge but if you explain it I'll vote on it. Judging condo debates makes me sad.

--Misc.--

Feel free to post round me, debaters invest a lot of time, energy, and resources into this activity and while I can't change my ballot after submitting it I'll hear you out.

At the end of the day debate is a game like no other and I want you to have fun. Cracking a joke or two will probably get you higher speaks. Treat others how you wanna be treated and let’s make this a positive and educational environment.

Put me on the email chain jackwalsh01@g.ucla.edu

THE IMPORTANT PART: I try to be totally agnostic when reaching decisions, but in terms of my experience I will probably be the most effective judge for clash of civs and kritik debates. I mostly answered framework and kritiks as a 1A and my neg debates were almost exclusively 1-off settler colonialism. Still, I will absolutely vote on framework against a k aff, and my experience in technical framework debates can probably help you because I can understand how your arguments interact. Trying to win framework versus a k aff in front of me means that a switch side claim or a TVA (the TVA probably being more persuasive) is very important, as aff teams tend to win some amount of "our critique/scholarship is valuable" in front of me, and I need a response to that.

And a bit about me, and how I judge:

I'm Jack, I was a 1A/2N. I judged all last year, planning on judging quite a bit this year too. I debated for three years for Davis Senior High in CX, I attended the TOC my senior year. Did NPDA for two years for UCSD with no major accomplishments, I graduated UCLA this year. I currently coach for the Sac Urban Debate League doing policy coaching and some non-policy stuff as well. If you have questions about debating and growing at a team without debate infrastructure I have a LOT of experience with that, having had to do that in both high school and college. I read queerness arguments on the aff and settler colonialism on the neg.

I'll be able to understand pretty much any rate of speed but I can only write so fast, so slow down a little bit on your very technical and in-depth analytic shells. The average number of times I call clear per tournament is zero, it really probably won't come up. I just don't want you to go top speed through your analytical framework shell so I can get everything down.

I have not yet voted for a kritik that did not win either the efficacy of their alt or their framework interpretation, I could see voting for such a kritik only if your link card is particular spicy and turns case-y (and even then it's still helpful to have framework).

I don't like having to reread speech docs. I will default to the contextualization that I hear in the round of cards, interpretations, linear disadvantages, and advocacies. This means that you have substantial latitude to spin your arguments, but also that I will hold you to a high standard for explanation and cross-application. The way that different arguments implicitly interact will very rarely come into my decision.

When I reach a decision, the first place I look is the 2NR and 2AR. The role of these last two speeches is to explain how I write my ballot for each side. The 2NR should tell me where to look on my flow when crafting a negative decision, and the inverse for the affirmative. I will probably first try to evaluate the relative impacts of the affirmative and negative, based off of the framework/impact debate. Additionally, when reaching my decision I will try to look at the round through both the viewpoint of the affirmative and negative as they portray it in their final rebuttal.

In the last year or so, I have given speaks in the range of 28.4-29.4 about 80% of the time. Above that ~10% of the time, below that ~10% of the time.

I'll probably inflate your speaker points, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.