I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and explain your arguments thoroughly. I will judge based on logically constructed arguments that are supported by facts. Be respectful and courteous to your opponent. Please send me your cases before the round starts. Good luck and have fun!

I am a grad student at Columbia. I have no experience in American High School debating formats (like LD and PF) and come from a background of debating primarily in the World University Debating format. I currently do APDA and BP debates but would not consider my preferences and style of judging defined by those formats.

Style

1. I have a strong preference for slow, confident speakers. You don't need to shout to be confident, but I believe a measured pace is more persuasive -- and anything I don't hear clearly, I don't credit as having been said.
2. I also believe debating is about persuasion through speech. I understand there are some norms regarding sending fully written out speeches/cases to judges, but I prefer to judge what I hear, not what I read.

Argumentation

1. I give a lot of weight to direct responsiveness. Even if you make arguments that implicitly rebut your opponent's argument, unless you mention exactly what argument you are rebutting and how your argument beats their argument, I will credit it as a parallel/separate point, rather than a rebuttal. And as such, your opponent's arguments will still stand.
2. Similarly, if you don't rebut something, even if it's ludicrous I will take it as true. And unrebutted arguments often decide my verdicts. This doesn't mean you need to dedicate significant time rebutting each line from your opponent. 1 rebuttal can, and often does, respond to a multiple arguments -- all I need from you is to signpost clearly what arguments your rebuttal is rebutting.
3. Because I'm not familiar with PF, LD or any of it's minutiae, the jargon and technical terms are likely to go over my head so make sure to explain terms you otherwise think a judge would or should know, as well as why those terms affect how I should judge the round. If your opponent uses jargon wrongly or makes claims about how I should judge the round that are incorrect, call them out for it and if I find that a team was deliberately trying to mislead me on jargon or rules of the format, they will be severely penalized.
4. Since I come from a parliamentary format, I don't respond particularly well to assertions about the way the world works and example-reliant arguments. Unless the premises of your arguments are well-known and highly intuitive, when given two opposing facts/pieces of evidence, I will award credit to the side that gives me structural reasons why their facts are true (e.g. incentive analysis for why a certain actor is incentivized to act a certain way will usually beat an argument that simply gives me examples of how that this actor has historically acted in this way).
5. I very much appreciate principle/moral arguments being made, but: Firstly, you need to weigh them against practical/pragmatic arguments. This doesn't necessarily mean contextualizing the principle in practical outcomes (i.e. saying if you don't operate on this principle the world becomes a worse place). Instead, ensure that you spend time explaining how sacrificing practical benefits for invaluable principles are worth the cost. Secondly, make sure you prove the principle rather than just asserting it's a principle we should care about. I tend to appreciate the use of intuition pumps: providing intuitive examples where most people would agree your principle would hold, and proving why those examples are analogous to the situation being debated.

For the life of me I can't figure out where the heading or font size options are. I apologize in advance for this paradigm looking like it was formatted by an 8 year old.

Last Updated for TFA State on 3/4/2025

If you have any questions pre-round, don’t hesitate to text me @ +1 (832) 314-1370, I will likely not see your email in time otherwise.

Paul Aldrich (he/him) paulLOVESdebate@gmail.com put me on the email chain pretty please.

You deserve a good RFD. If you disagree with my decision, I highly encourage you to post-round me. Even if you agree with my decision, I think asking additional questions is pivotal in becoming a better debater. I put a lot of thought and effort into making the best decision possible, and you post-rounding me shows that you understand that and are willing to test me on my decision. I had some pretty diabolical arguments with judges when I was debating so never worry about me making a character judgement about you based on your post-rounding.

TLDR; I'm a former circuit LD debater who's been judging for roughly two years. There aren't any arguments that I patently won't evaluate, but bad responses are sufficient to answer bad arguments.

Who I am-
Former circuit LD debater, current "debate coach" (VERY part-time) and college student at the University of Oklahoma. I like planes.

Pref Shortcuts (based on how qualified I am to judge these rounds)
1 - Theory, Phil, Generics
2 - Util, Tricks
3 - Kritiks w/o dense jargon, K’s that have stupid alts that don’t do anything
4 - Kritiks w/ dense jargon, Performance K’s

Notes on specific arguments that people have asked me about (text me pre-round to be featured here !)
Disclosure - Disclosure is good. You should do it. Read your disclosure shell. Anti-disclosure K debaters are somewhat convincing. Anti-disclosure non-K debaters are just trying to be special. That being said I obviously won't deliberately hack for it.
Friv Shells - I’ll vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact, but by their very nature frivolous shells will be hard to win since they are… well… frivolous. If you think u can win “Fun is a voting issue” then go for it but I’m going to evaluate it the same as any other shell. If you’re getting killed on it then I’m not voting on it.
Reps K’s - I personally loved reading reps K's, and I think reps K’s can be very strategic. However, I find that winning a DTD implication on them is sometimes difficult, but I will definitely vote on them. (ask me about Moen reps!)

Util/Stock
Plan Affs - Cool. Despite coaching a handful of T debaters, I literally never debated T so I’m very neutral on it.
CPs - Cool. I like CP theory so just keep in mind you’re probably not going to get away with 18 conditional pics but if you like the theory debate then go for it. Textual competition is the bare minimum, functional competition is best.
Advantages/Disads - Not much to say. Simplest of simple. That being said, read the below note.

NOTE - I don’t keep up with a lot of the plan affs or util garbage because it changes so quickly between topics and I frankly don’t judge enough to bother to keep up. This means:

1] Updated for TFA State - My research on this topic goes as far as googling "what is Artificial General Intelligence", and whatever rounds I have judged prior to you. Please treat me like I have never heard your case before because I probably haven't.
2] If you’re using abbreviations then please say at least on the first one what it means (and say it slowly PLEASE!). If you assume that I know that LEOSSC means low earth orbit starlink satellite configuration I’m going to lose my mind.
3] Maybe pref me a bit lower if your A strategy is dumping five trillion cards on case, not because I can’t evaluate it but because I’ll probably spend an hour trying to figure out what half the tags mean and it’ll give me a headache.

Phil
I’m a bit of a phil nerd so I will definitely like these debates
Phil is always fun but most of it (Kant, hobbes, you know the ones) are extravagantly overdone. Spice it up with a couple triggers or something interesting so I'm not voting on the same 3 calc indicts every round and I’ll be jumping for joy.
Non-standard phil is always fun, just make sure you know how to explain it.
There’s just really not that much to say about phil. It’s fun, I like it, I’ll vote on it. ‘nuf said.

Theory
Theory, like most procedurals, precedes all other arguments unless otherwise clarified
Unless previously warranted I won’t vote on new 2NR shells. It’s the 2NR not the 2NC. If the 1AR has to justify it y’all do too.
Weighing is your best friend - 99% of theory debates are won through weighing.
All arguments need an extended claim, warrant and impact and theory is no different. If you just extend a standard without impacting it out, you didn’t extend the shell (boooo)
IVI’s need more of an implication than “X is an independent voting issue”. We need impacts!!
Ctrl+F “Friv Shells” under “Notes on Specific Arguments”

Kritiks
World's okay-est K judge
Crystalize, Crystalize, Crystalize!! Your 2NR/2AR should be significantly simpler than your 1AC/1NC
Your standard Escalante Cap K is fine and very easy to evaluate, once we start getting closer to Deluzian tyrannical social-democratic state is where my head starts to spin.
I’m going to need more explanation and impact weighing than most judges will.
Link contextualization is what separates good and bad K debaters. 4mins of overview extensions off of a doc about “the structures they’re implicitly upholding” will probably make me cry.
The biggest issue I find with most kritiks is they lack some sort of framing mechanism, or fail to link their offense back to that framing mechanism. Tell me why I should care as a judge
I assume procedurals come before a kritik unless otherwise articulated

Non-T Affs
1] I am relatively agnostic as to whether T is a voting issue or not. However I often find myself asking why you need me to vote for you.
2] The 2AR needs to answer 2 questions a) why do I, as a judge, care about your aff b) what does my ballot do
3] I also often find it questionable as to why we need to discuss your aff in particular as opposed to the 1,000,000s of other non T issues we could be discussing, so maybe answer that one too

Tricks

I will evaluate all tricks as though I have never heard them before. Long story short, don't read a tricks unless you can explain them. I have noted some big offenders below
1] Condo logic - if you can't explain what a tacit ballot conditional is, don't read it

2] Trivialism - if you can't explain what a trivial entity is, don't read it

3] Indexicals - if you can't explain why this doesn't also flow neg, don't read it

4] If you can't explain your trick without "1AR - Extension - Good Samaritan Paradox", you probably shouldn't read it

Logical tricks fine. Substantive tricks okay. Framework tricks love. Tricks that start from patently false statements like “one grain of sand doesn’t make a sound” are bad. Hidden tricks between cards are stupid – one of my favorite quotes from any paradigm, “I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist.”

That being said I have voted on all of these, but if you make me vote on something hidden or a one line a-priori I'll probably dock your speaks (and cry).

Miscellaneous Opinion Based Items
These are all just preference and won’t change how I evaluate the round. This paradigm just needed some more personality :)

What I DON’T like to see -
1] People being rude. I understand that it’s a competitive event, but I promise being a dick to your opponent isn’t going to be winning any points from me.
2] Judging the same aff 18 rounds in a row. I know this one is often unavoidable and it’s very strategic to be in a prep group, I just like to complain about it.
3] Changing what you read for a judge < Changinghow you read it for a judge. Do not read tricks and theory in front of me just because I have them at a 1. 90% of tricks debates I've judged are bad and make me very annoyed.
4] Reading blatantly miscut, powertagged, or improperly implicated evidence - C'mon man.

Speaker Points!

If you're prefing judges for speaks you should be more confident in yourself... you won't get 4-2 screwed if you just go 5-1 !

I give high speaks, don’t worry.
Start at roughly a 28-28.5 but it’s MUCH easier to gain points than to lose them

Judging Paradigm – Lincoln-Douglas Debate

1. Framework Matters
- I evaluate debates based on the framework set by both debaters.
- If uncontested, I default to the Affirmative’s framework.
- If frameworks clash, I weigh which best upholds the resolution and provides the most fair and applicable standard.

2. Value and Criterion
- The Value should align with the resolution and be a legitimate goal.
- The Criterion must logically link to the Value and provide a clear way to evaluate arguments.
- I prioritize clash on how the Criterion functions rather than just rejecting an opponent’s outright.

3. Case Debate
- Clash is key—a debater must engage directly with their opponent’s case.
- I evaluate logical consistency, evidence, and real-world application of arguments.
- Extensions must be well-explained and impacted—if I don’t hear the impact, I won’t weigh it.

4. Weighing Impacts
- I weigh impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
- Debaters should explicitly tell me why their impact matters more.
- If weighing is missing, I default to the most well-explained and logically sound impact.

5. Speed & Clarity
- I am okay with speed but prioritize clarity—if I can’t understand it, I won’t flow it.
- Try to avoid spreading, but if you can't help it, clear taglines and signposting help keep the round accessible.

6. Speaker Points & Conduct
- I reward strategic thinking, engagement, and delivery.
- I deduct for rudeness, excessive interruptions, or poor conduct.
- Good persuasion and speaking style can boost speaker points.

7. Final Focus: Give Me Voters
- The best way to win my ballot is to give clear voting issues in the final speeches.
- Tell me why your case and framework should win in a concise and structured way.

Good luck!

Judging Paradigm – PF

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

Hello! I'm a third year NFA LD debater at UNL. I debated for 4 years in high school LD at Lincoln East, both on the local (NE) and nat circuit. Use speechdrop or add me to the email chain: fondue560@gmail.com. I've seen a wide variety of LD styles, and I can probably keep up with whatever you wanna do, so debate however you want to. In high school, I ran a lot of phil, a few ks, and stock and trad stuff. Now in college, I primarily run ks and policy-style arguments since NFA LD is pretty similar to one person policy. I have no preference on what you decide to run, as long as it's not offensive (debate is still supposed to be an educational activity). I decide the round based off of the flow, so focus your energy on winning that. I evaluate impacts based on whatever framework wins the round, so impact weighing definitely helps.

Note for AGI topic: I'm a computer science major with a focus area in AI, so I have a bit more knowledge about the tech you're debating than a lot of the rest of your judges will.

Short Pref:

Run what you run, as long as it's not tricks. Please. I have a really low threshold to responding to tricks and you will likely be disappointed with how I judge them.

Stock - can be done well, but can also be bland. go for it

Policy - Go for it.

K - Go for it. If you're running a non-T aff though, I expect you to be ready to argue you shouldn't have to be topical, but I'm cool with these.

Phil - Go for it. I ran a lot of this in high school, but I am a bit rusty on my phil now.

Speed

I can handle speed as long as you're clear. I don't flow off the doc, but if I can't understand you I will say speed/clear a couple of times if I can't flow you. If you don't slow down or enunciate more and I miss stuff, that's on you.

If you're hitting someone who can't handle speed, don't spread. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do so.

Theory

Please don't run dumb shells! I'll vote on theory if you win it. I evaluate this based on what arguments are made in round. If there's no argument made for reasonability, I'll default to competing interps since it's easier to evaluate that way. But given the time skew in high school LD, there's strong arguments for reasonability.

There's some shells you're going to have a hard time winning in front of me. The one I see the most often is no 1AR theory. Generally, I typically end up evaluating the 1AR theory shell above this shell, since the impacts in those shells are much more fleshed out, and almost always outweigh the impacts in the no 1AR theory shell. If you read this shell in front of me, you're probably wasting your own speech time. I have yet to see someone run this shell with an impact that outweighs the impacts in the aff's shell. On a similar note, I don't need affs to read that they get 1AR theory in the AC.

I WILL vote on disclosure theory. This includes both on the wiki, and in round disclosure. If you don't know what the wiki is or how to use it, ask. There are a few valid reasons not to disclose on the wiki (ex: identity related arguments), but for the most part I believe disclosure is the best practice. If you aren't sharing speech docs in round, it won't be very hard for your opponent to win on theory. If you don't share speech docs in round and your opponent runs a disclosure shell, you should expect to lose my ballot unless you have a REALLY REALLY strong reason as to why you didn't. This is probably one of the only strong beliefs I hold about debate! I believe it's a super bad practice in debate to refuse to share the evidence you are reading with your opponent. If your cards are good and say what you say they say, you should have no problem with your opponent (and judges) to see your case.

T

T can be really, really powerful. If aff is obviously topical, I do think it's abusive to run a shell given the time skew in high school LD, but I'll still vote on it if you win it.

The format used for T and theory is usually pretty similar, so my stance on things like competing interps and reasonability is also pretty much the same.

If you're going for T, all 6 minutes of the 2N should probably be T in front of me.

K

Go for it. I've ran these periodically throughout my years as a debater, both topical and non topical. Non topical k affs are fine, but obviously run T against these. If you run a non topical aff, be prepared to respond to T. If you're non topical, I do think you should be able to defend being non topical. Have a clear link, impact, alt/advocacy, and role of the ballot to make my job easier.

Know your lit well enough to explain to me what I'm voting for. I want a clear picture of what the K is throughout the round. This means that having clear overviews would probably help you out, since these make it super, super clear what the K is about.

Some K rounds can get messy, especially when it's K v K. Please signpost. I like good line-by-line, but understand these are sometimes difficult in K rounds. Try to make your speeches as organized as you can while still communicating what I'm voting for.

DA/CP

DAs are cool. CPs are cool. Maybe don't be a debater that runs an excessive amount of offs, especially in LD, but ig if that's what you want to do, it's your round to decide the strat, not mine. If there's clearly an excessive amount (>5 for sure, but depends on the offs), theory is a viable aff strat against it. I'll do my best to vote off the flow though, so if you want to run a lot of offs, that's your decision.

Please try not to run offs that contradict each other.

Phil

I can usually understand phil pretty easily, so feel free to run whatever philosophy you want to. You do have to actually explain your phil though, even if it's one that I'm familiar with. Don't bank on me just knowing your arguments, even if it's one you know I've ran in the past. I haven't looked at a lot of the arguments I used to run since high school, so I'm a bit rusty on the authors I used to be really familiar with. I'll evaluate the round based on what's on the flow, so don't assume I know something if you don't say it in round. With phil rounds, I need to have a clear framework I'm voting under and clear impacts that flow under it.

Add hbisevac0@gmail.com

Niles North 23, Kentucky 27

General

Technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. This means that concessions (with warrants) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

Topic research is good, backfile slop is not. Research is my favorite part of the activity and I will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

Organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times. I flow straight down on an excel doc and may have the doc open out of curiosity about cards but I am not following along.

"Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. The litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions. I do my best to avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence." -David Griffith

Thoughts

Topicality: Predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. Have cards that define the word, not just use it. Reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. Limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

Counterplans: Solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. Most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

Kritiks: Teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. Vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. Backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. The less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

Planless AFFs: The more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

LD

Everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

Random

-Please use email chains, not speech drop. Have proper subject lines with the tournament, round, and teams.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Avoid deadtime as much as possible.

-Don't be a jerk.

-Ask about anything. It often skips my mind to write down random thoughts I have about the debate as it is going on so I forget to mention it in the RFD but it will come back to me if you ask about it.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, feel free to reach out!

Sunny (He/Him/His)

MN‘24 | SLU '28(premed track)

email chain pls (but I do my best to not flow off of it): millardnorthsb@gmail.com

*I made this paradigm in like a few minutes so lmk if u have any questions

I was very involved in nat circ LD for most of my career. During my senior year season, I broke at most of the bid tournaments I went to.

Tech >>>>> Truth. Truth probably makes tech easier i.e. Spark or Wipeout has a higher threshold for me to vote on than Dedev or Heg Bad.

*Read bolded stuff in the specific sections if u want to get straight to the point

*These are for the most part preferences and not rules I religiously follow

Online Debate:

-Ill do my best to flow off the doc during the speeches but ill cross ref after - human error is a thing and I wont stake the decision off a flowing issue

Prefs:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument. However, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for what im used to:

Policy – 1

Topicality – 2

Phil(Kant), Theory(CP Theory), K – 3

Phil and Theory(Anything Else) - 4

Tricks – 5(very sad)

SPEAKS:

Based on the strategy, clash, and sounding comprehensible. Speaks kinda inflated(might change the more judging I do). Speaks are generally arbitrary so here's a list ill have in the back of my mind

<28 - debater did something offensive(p much the only reason)

28 - 28.2 - novice/new to debate

28.3 - 28.6 - this was an ok debate where debaters prolly spoke past each other and/or read prep they didnt understand(many key issues)

28.7 - 29 - the debate was fairly fun to watch but there is still a decent amount to improve on i.e. efficiency, basic strategy, etc

29.1< - this round was great and there were only minor issues with amazing clash while keeping it organized - not going for too much(neg example: neg debater went for DA and got good case coverage) (aff example(demonstrated good round vision): aff sat on one out like a straight turn)

Ks:

Aff should probably get to weigh case but a good K debater should be able to win - good K debating is good case coverage

Good for Fwk + Extinction outweighs. I believe this is 7/10 usually gonna be the out if the K debater spends less than 2 mins on it.

I will prolly enjoy a Set Col vs Kant debate and this debate will be the only debate I enjoy with Phil vs K.

This was kind of a phase for me but weird enough Ks are pretty strategic when done right. During my junior year, all I went for was psychoanalysis but only for the purpose of beating K affs. I’m familiar with the K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. The K lit I'm better for would-be Generic Policy Ks and Identity Ks. High theory requires more explanation. If you cant/wont explain the K in CX, Im not voting for it.

Topicality:

Topicality debates are cool. Neg prolly wins cuz their definitions are more precise and/or their standards o/w. Aff wins by winning collapsing the debate down to reasonablity(and win a bunch of defense) and/or win their interp is precise enough + win their model is is best for debateability and/or sitting for 3 mins on precision first(prolly my favorite to watch). PTIV is probably true but I will obviously vote on the flow.

Topicality(Framework)

Will l probably lean neg on fw vs K affs when debaters are same skill level. 2NRs going for clash are more persuasive and honestly easier to explain imo but still open to other strats. I also think topical K affs(soft left) are much more strategic but you do you.

Theory

I will only be "happy" to vote on CP theory if the it was dropped/less than 30 seconds were spent on it. Other than that, I will have tons of bias against 1AR restarts, 1NC theory that isnt Disclosure(not against novices), New Affs(probably not needed),or Topicality/Framewrk. I think against these shells reasonability and DTA are very persuasive.

Assuming literally no argument is made excluding RVIs, either way, I default:

- No RVI(always)

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater

- Norms setting

Phil:

I don't understand much outside of Kant. I've hit lots of phil debaters so I should be alright with this if arguments are explained well.

Tricks:

I know "tricks" is a very broad name and probably makes some of yall cringe but understand i've been on both sides of this debate. I will do my best to stop my biases from influencing my decision but I do truly believe a chain of warrantless blips greatly hinders your ability to grow as a debater. These args might be good in the short term but are a terrible strategy vs more experienced debaters and caps out your career early. Against less experienced debaters, this strategy will also just receive less speaks. With that being said, I wont instantly throw out these arguments but will have a very very very low threshold for answering these. There are some exceptions tho - hard defaults - 1] I am evaluating all speeches 2] I am not voting for you because of your specific backround whether you are specific race or even the GCB.

Arguments should have a claim warrant impact - long UV's with arguments along the line of (no neg arguments, eval debate after [x] speech) should be grouped and given barely any time.

Policy:

I did this mainly and still follow NDT rounds here and there. I thinkcompetition debates are cool and ive been on both sides of the issue. Other than competition debates, this tends to be fairly basic. Just weigh and provide judge instruction and it should be a solid round. Default judge kick and presume neg unless neg goes for CP or if neg reads uncondo CP.

General thoughts on each CP(wont factor into decision) - PICs, Adv CPs are probably not abusive. Agent CPs probably dont compete. Process CPs are not abusive against new affs and should lose to a good 2ar on the perm.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be adamant about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

general

graduated: northland christian hs '20; ut austin '22 (ba); texas law '24 (jd)

experience: competed 4 yrs hs ld local/nat circuit; consistent ld/pf/cx coach and judge since competing

chain email: austindebatedocs@gmail.com (speechdrop.net/file share preferred but idrc)

tldr: intervention bad

____________________________________________________________________________________________

misc.

- all claims need a warrant with a threshold of "bc" (or something similar) bc although warrants are infinitely regressive, voting on a warrantless claim requires an out-of-round justification (it's more interventionist)

- i default both sides must have access to winning/speaks bc such access is intrinsic to the ballot (common implications: args must be in the 2n/2a to be evaluated, no new 2ar args unless answering new 2nr args)

- spreading, flex prep, joint cross, sitting, cameras off, and/or most anything else is fine bc idk y not

- i don't clear unless asked bc it's interventionist

____________________________________________________________________________________________

p/p

- by default i presume in favor of whichever advocacy is closest to squo bc i need a reason to deviate from it; i don't assume permissibility flips either way bc by default no debater has the burden to prove a binding ethic

- no extended fw/paradigm issue and i'll likely vote on p/p absent an uplayer/downlayer bc the debate becomes irresolvable otherwise (for cx i'll assume util/x first bc that seems to be the norm)

- if the p/p debate is irresolvable (i.e. one debater wins permissibility and one debater wins presumption but no one says which comes first, both debaters win a reason they get presumption, both debaters defend squo), i'll flip a virtual coin (aff heads, neg tails) bc that's least interventionist

____________________________________________________________________________________________

pref shortcuts (by % confidence in ability to adjudicate):

theory/t/tricks: 95-100% (depending on density/speed; flowing several blip-y tricks gets weird sometimes)

larp: 85-100% (depending on density/speed; i'm unfamiliar w some cx nuances but learning)

phil/k: 100%

____________________________________________________________________________________________

speaks

- based on strategy and evaluated on a scale from 0-100% then converted to a "normal" speaks range (locals 28-30, nat circuit 27-30) bc idk a more objective way to eval (these are always on some level arbitrary)

- will grant a speaks spike bc no reason not to (and i prefer to bc it's less interventionist); subject to ballot constraints like "no ties" bc i can't give double 30s on a no ties ballot

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Hi I'm Scott

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style when in the role of the judge. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible. I am a very flexible critic and coach.

For email chain: a_bulbrook@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge, and while I've watched my son debate before, I am by no means advanced.

From him, this means:

No spreading, k's, theory, tricks, super advanced Phil, CPs, or really anything prog. Try to just stick to trad debate, I am a lay judge. I value persuasive speaking and voters at the end of the final speech. Thank you!

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and articulate your arguments properly. Be respectful and courteous to your fellow competitor.

Cross-ex and other aspects such as presentation and performance are very important for both speaks and how willing I am to vote for you. In rebuttals tell me why I should vote for you. Decide the debate for me, tell me why you won and why the other team lost.

An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You must also explain the implications of an argument/how it relates to the rest of the pieces in the debate. New implications to extended arguments are fair game for new responses.

My email is shivani.chadha@gmail.com

I'm a college student who did debate in middle school and judged during my high school years. I approach each round with an open mind, fairness, and respect. I particularly enjoy the crossfire section and creative arguments. I value evidence and historical evidence. Please back up your points.

I have never judged debate competitions before, though I have competed in collegiate debate. I'm really just looking for which side makes more sense and is more logical. Try to be clear and logical in your arguments, as well as organized. I don't really care for style or speaking as much.

I'm a traditional judge. Please be clear and weigh well.

Sending docs would be nice but you don't have to - xhm1031@hotmail.com

please speak clearly, explain your reasoning, and give impacts.

I prefer you to time yourselves and hold yourselves accountable on timing.

Please keep it respectful and keep around a conversational pace.

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).

Strake Jesuit '23

Princeton '27

Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

T:

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

This has been updated since after Columbia Invitational 2025 It's been simplified substantially (yes, really) depending on when you last read it.

• yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com
• If I'm at your tournament and you have a question about a local or national round and I can't disclose, ask me after awards and I'll break down the round with you. Education is a good thing. I save the flows (generally) on day of tournament.
• If you're going for ontology in front of me, I'll vote for it but I need you to explain it to me like I'm a third grader because I don't see enough rounds on it to comfortably evaluate it correctly. I like Kritik's and can (and do) evaluate them properly, but I need the ontology stuff over-explained to me. The same applies to pomo.
• If you're gonna read performance in front of me I've gotten (slightly) more comfortable evaluating it but please explain the implications to me like I'm a third grader. I don't want to exclude any style of debate, but I don't see enough rounds on this to feel like I'm the best to evaluate it.
• If you ask me to pre-flow before the round I'm starting your prep. Be prepared, you had 30 minutes to do it. I'm not extending the round more because you were unprepared.

Notes before the paradigm proper:

* 1) Saying "it's new" to try to dodge disclosure is not good. This is probably the only disclo interp I'm persuaded to not hate.

2) The below is taken from Rose Larson. I strongly agree with the below. I'll add this: If it is a pattern with an individual debater (pattern= 2+ instances I've observed, not circuit heresay), my threshold will get increasingly low with responses as you're actively excluding others and that's not cool.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

3) Stolen from Deena McNamara because I think she's right:

"When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff." The 30 minutes you had before round does not anoint you the ability to have a full doc read out with zero critical thinking skills. Taking 5 minutes of prep before the 2AR is also not the strat- true story.

(LD)

Defaults:

P&P- neg

Theory- DTA unless instructed otherwise. I am increasingly annoyed by theory that attempts to increasingly get away from substance. This doesn't mean I will move away from tech>truth, but it does mean that my threshold for specific shells continues to get lower. This includes spec shells. If you have questions, ask before round.

"But Grant you had more in your paradigm before". Yes. And at this point I've decided essay paradigms are a bad norm. Within reason read whatever so that you're reading what your style is. If you have questions, ask before round.

A note about arguments: As somebody recently said to me as I was judging "this isn't the panel to read determinism in front of". While I feel very comfortable judging most things (and can and will), there are certain arguments I just don't hear/adjudicate that much. If you're able to really break down and explain them really well, you'll get an auto 30 and it will be much easier for me to vote on [insert thing here]. If it's an argument I'm not as familiar with, if it's not explained well enough you may not get me to bite on it. This also means that if you read 25 tricks in an underview and then give me the blippiest extensions known to humankind expecting me grant them to you and then trash talk my decisions (yes, I'm thinking about one round in particular), it is on you. More explanation/contextualization/weighing>more things in the 2N/2AR.

Other spec stuff:

-If you tell me "but it's in the doc" that doesn't count. I'm not using the doc to correct my flowing, I'm using it to check evidence. Me being okay with spreading is not an okay to set a land speed record for word delivery. If I didn't catch it after I inform you of my speed pref, that's on you. If you're also somebody that I've had to clear ~3 times I will straight up stop flowing and get what I can from the speech. I am increasingly annoyed by incoherent spreading and people using the doc as a crutch and expecting me to magically project the doc onto the flow. It's you debating, not whatever your coach gave you to read or whatever you could copy and paste on a doc.

- Please give me judge instructions on where to go. As Amanda Ciocca once said "I'm not doing the work for you". TELL ME where on the flow I'm going. Me critical thinking isn't good for either team, because at that point I'm having to intervene to make a decision. You'll probably hear me say that the round was a "chart your own path to the ballot" round, and you'll also probably see a split panel. Debaters just need to get better and go back to the basics. You're not winning everything, and that's ok. Stop going for everything. This practice needs to die off.

- Please clash properly and extend properly. This is getting worse, especially in PF. If I have to judge another PF round where both teams have forgotten how to actually clash, and repeat me numbers, and have horrendous contextualization skills, I will vote for whoever does the contextualization better. I'm thinking about one round here in particular, but it's also reflective of debaters getting lazier across the circuit and getting worse at both research practice and debating. Please have better round vision for all of us- this goes to all debaters on the circuit. Sincerely, all judges on elim panels everywhere.

Drops and extensions: Yes, you need to extend in every speech. I am not going to float things magically across your flow even if your opponent drops them. If you don't I won't vote for it. The FBK kid who whined and ranted about my decision after they decided to extend ~25 poorly justified nibs falls into this category. Get better at warranting things so that I feel more comfortable extending them.

PF Prefs:

A) Paraphrased evidence is a cancerous trend besetting this activity. If both teams run paraphrased evidence, I might flip a coin. Please read actual cards. It's not hard to do. Your speaks are also hard capped at 25 or whatever the lowest the tournament allows is. Get better evidence practices. 100% will vote on paraphrased evidence theory to stop this practice from spreading.

B) I am... annoyed at this ridiculous trend of pseudo kritiks being run. You can't develop it in four minutes properly without being seriously deficient on the flow elsewhere and will probably lose once your opponent kills your link. I am not the judge to read them in front of in PF. Go be an LDer or go to Policy.

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way. If the evidence comparison is bad from both of you (it probably is since weighing and contextualization seems to be a lost art form), I'll evaluate the better contextualized scenario and/or the scenario that requires me to do less "work". I'm holding the line here. See my whining above for more.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate. I am equally unamused with this stupid trend of pre-flowing during the round time. Learn to be prepared and not waste everybody's time.

Policy

* Honestly just kinda look at my LD stuff. There's not a lot you can read I won't understand, but I may need you to explain some of the warranting since that's been lacking in some rounds I've seen.

Please do not spread (talk too fast). If I cant follow your arguments because you are speaking too fast, I wont be able to vote for you.

If you are using any terms/phrases that is not commonly known to the public, Please explain it after its first usage.

I do not understand progressive debate. I don't like to judge it. I will vote against the side who initiated progressive debate immediately. If the AFF starts prog, i vote NEG. If NEG starts prog, I vote AFF and vice versa.

Please add me on the email chain:amandaciocca@gmail.com

2/19/24 UPDATE: I feel compelled to preface that Im becoming pretty tab. I keep a pretty detailed flow. I don't hack for args. Speaks are what I say they are. I evaluate almost anything as long as there is a coherent argument with a warrant. Yes, I will read cards if instructed. I need a warrant, stop spamming blippy arguments and making me decide whether I find them legit enough.

Ex-varsity college policy debater for UMW who read primarily Policy and K's. Been judging for 5 years so Im slowly becoming more cranky about bad debates. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm, currently a MA student in the Women Studies program. I competed in LD for four years, mostly read soft-left policy stuff and fem/ borderlands Ks. I coach in the summer for the Texas Debate Collective, and also coach a few independent students during the season.

Refer to me in round however you'd like, my pronouns are she/her. Some people hate being called judge but unless you feel comfy referring to me as Amanda then do whatever you want idgaf <3

Im fairly flex at this moment in my judging career so realistically I'm fine with most args. Just dont say morally repugnant stuff. Any questions just ask.

____________________________________________________________________________

Pref guide:

Ks (General) : 1

K Affs and Performance: 1

Policy: 1

Phil: 3

Trad: 5

Theory: 2

Tricks/Skep: 4

_____________________________________________

LD:

Here's the most important things to know:

1. Learn how to flow. Im tired of debaters answering stuff that wasn't read. Im THIS close to just not looking at the doc at all because y'all are just docbots.

2. Don't be racist/homophobic/sexist/ or just problematic. Any instances of BLATANT verbal discrimination/ harassment of an opponent then Im giving you an L 20 and will hard stop the round reporting you to tab.HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!!

3. Your pre-written analytics SHOULD BE GENDERLESS. Im ripping my hair out at the fact that people still aren't removing he/him/she/her from docs.

4. I'm expressive af. I will be actively making faces, most of them aren't actually directed at you. Also I do have an RBF so don't take it personally.

5. Do what you are best at.

6. Weigh.

7. Give me judge instruction.

8. Im not doing any extra work for you, I'm many debate years old and am LAZY. Tell me where to vote or else I'm going to make a decision you don't like lol

_____________________________________________________________________________

2/5/25

Updated Preferences Stylistically:

Policy-I've started really loving good policy debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K-K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. I have been leaning neg on TFWK, but this debate CAN be won j stop reading generics that debaters already have answers to. Yes impact turns, unless the 1N tells me otherwise. Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.Stop reading K's without links OR extending every card in the 2NR, its just making me sad.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

Phil-I love good phil debates.Post-Harvard, Im pretty comfy evaluating dense Kant debates. Im fine with any phil as long as you win it is a good metric to frame the debate through. I have no defaults, probably should win ideal theory good. Do with this what you want, if you are comfy going for phil then pref me wherever you'd like.

Theory: I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes I guess. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells!I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Tricks-This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Skep-This is probably morally repugnant. Only chance I vote in this is when it is completely conceded and I can get a nice slow 2NR explaining the syllogism. I DONT enjoy these debates and would much prefer other things. I've voted on skep twice and somehow a entire tourney decided I should be struck in elims <3 tldr: dont read it unless its an easy debate, if you make me think even just a little about it then you'll probably lose.

LD: I am New to Circuit LD, and have a moderate level of experience judging traditional LD. I am open to anything that you want to run, but due to my newness to the Circuit, may not understand your argument and thus not be able to cast a vote for it.

My son advised me to tell you to pref as follows:

Trad- 1

Phil- 2

Policy/Stock- 3

K- 3

Non-Topical Aff- 4

Theory- 5/Strike

I have less experience flowing spread debate, please limit spreading to 250 words per minute.

I am in my 26th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit College Preparatory. Persuasion, clarity, and presentation are priorities for me. While I have a working knowledge of many progressive arguments, I prefer traditional, topical debate. Since I do not judge frequently, it is crucial to speak clearly and articulate the points you want me to focus on. If you go too fast and fail to follow this advice, you risk losing me. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand. Make your path to my ballot clear.

I will accept certain theory arguments, such as topicality or disclosure, and will vote on them if there is demonstrated abuse. However, I firmly believe debates should center on the assigned topic.

I also believe in pre-round disclosure, as it helps level the playing field for all participants. I value well-supported arguments backed by evidence. Drops matter, as does impact calculus. Providing clear, compelling reasons why you are winning on offense is the simplest way to secure my ballot.

For all email chains, please send to both:
jcrist1965@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Introduction

Affiliations

Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022

Columbia University, Columbia College 2022 - Present

Pronouns

He/Him/His

Email

Please add me to the email chain: zjc2107@columbia.edu

Bio

Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in speech and debate for the last seven years. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Congress, and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school. I had substantial success on the Nebraska circuit. I am a 2X qualifier to nationals in policy and a 1X qualifier in Extemp and Congress (I qualified for all three my senior year). I've also competed nationally at Nationals (duh), NIETOC, and notable tournaments like Emory and Apple Valley Minneapple. I actively judge and compete for Columbia University's Debate Society in American/British Parliamentary Debate. I have also judged Policy, LD, and PF across the national circuit over the last few years in college. Lastly, I serve as the current tournament director for the Columbia Invitational.

-

General Information for Competitors

Online Expectations

Cameras: I would like you to have your camera on during your speeches and cross-examination. However, I am OK with you having it off during your competitors' speeches and prep to reduce visual distractions. I will have my camera on during the round.

Speed: Please speak slower and louder during online rounds in case of connectivity issues.

Speed/Clarity

I am comfortable with higher speeds, but please remain clear and slow down on your tags/authors. I flow off the speech, not the speech doc. If you speak too fast, I will say SPEED; if your speaking is unclear, I will say CLEAR. You get two strikes before I drop speaker points and disregard your speech for obvious reasons.

Speaks

I initially had a whole section explaining my breakdown but decided it created more questions than answers. So, for your benefit, I average around 27.5 speaker points. If you want to speak high, be creative with your argument, have excellent clarity, and be time-effective. In the case of LD, if you are running a K and the 1AR drops the link, the alternative, and all the impacts, close out on that and end your speech early; that is much more impressive from a speaker's perspective than you rambling to fill the entire speech time.

Ethics

Given the recent circumstances nationwide, I think creating an equitable space for all competitors is essential. I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit; moreover, the equity procedures I've seen used in APDA further support my reasoning for adding an ethics section. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I am only a judge interventionist in these circumstances, and the team conducting these issues will be dropped and their speaker points tanked. The opposite team will get 30s out of respect.

This also goes both ways: If you think I have been unethical regarding my RFDs, flowing style, or anything else, please email me so I can improve.

-

TLDR Paradigm

Note for Columbia 2025: It's been a while since I have judged, and I have very little topic knowledge, so explain your links and arguments to a higher burden than usual.

TLDR for LD/Policy

I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, competing on the national and Nebraska circuits. I am a Tabula Rasajudge. I am open to pretty much all arguments in LD/Policy; the rankings of how to prefer me are below (1: High - 5: Low)

1 - Stock K/Kritik, Identity K/Kritik, K-Affs/Performance, Plans, DA/Disad, Topicality/T, & Traditional (LD Format)

2: Deleuze and Guattari K/Kritik, & Theory

3: Frivolous Theory, FW/Framework, CP/PICs, & High Theory K/Kritik (outside of D&G)

4: Meme Cases

5: Tricks

TLDR for PF

I have major gripes with the format's trajectory and am unsure why the coaches and debaters are taking it there, but whatever. I have a high burden for evidence and despise blippy, power-tagged, and just plain terrible evidence. I care for sound clashes and competitiveness on both sides. While this is my least judged event, I genuinely believe I am substantially more capable of generating the right decision for the round.

TLDR for Parli

I care for strong, logical argumentation where your arguments are warranted. I also actively judge and compete at the collegiate level. Use that as a reference for my judging capabilities.

-

Full Paradigm

Flowing

I am an active flower throughout the round. For evidence, I followed the tag, author, and date. I flow entire shells for T/Theory/FW, so please read the shell slowly. If you will read the shell incredibly fast, include it in the speech doc. For PF, having clear evidence is especially important for me, so please be clear when transitioning to new evidence/arguments.

Game vs. Education

I see both sides of the argument because I am Tabula Rasa. Convince me which side of the argument I should evaluate for framing, standard, and voting purposes.

Truth vs. Tech

Over time, I realized this overarching judging conflict is terrible. You can have a very technical debating style while being extraordinarily truthful and vice versa. I see them as equal.; thus, as a debater, I was hoping you could appeal to both (it will make you better trust me).

LD/Policy

Disclosure: I vote on the disclosure theory in most cases. In your disclosure shell, please include a screenshot of the empty wiki page and a screenshot of an attempt to communicate from you without a response from the affirmative at least 10 minutes before the official round start time. I did say I voted on disclosure in most cases; I am persuaded by disclosure bad arguments from identity K Affs or if the debater is a minority.

Plan Affs: Great plans are formatted well and engaging throughout—the more specific the plan, the better. Also, if you are a LARPer in LD, go ahead with a straight Util standard or insert a full plan text. For LD, the stronger the plan has a connection to the resolution, the stronger it will be against theory and framework.

K/Kritiks/Performance: The K is my favorite argument, and I extensively ran them on both Aff and Neg throughout my senior year. In the case of most Ks, make sure it has links directly to the resolved or the opponent's case. In responding to FW/theory as a K Aff, I find it more persuasive to use your authors instead of your Block backlogs, which are much stronger and compelling from a judging perspective. I am also open to performance cases and non-topical Ks, so feel free to run them regarding my rankings of general Ks: Identity, Stock, D&G, High Theory (D&G was the only high theory K I ran, thus the higher preference).

DA/Disads: There is not much to say here. Ensure the link and UQ are clear. I've seen this before, where some debaters run a K link and impact without an alt as a minor DA to the Aff. I am open to this, but I am not sure howlegal this is.

FW/Framework: If possible, I prefer debaters who engage with the K Aff. However, I understand this is not possible in many cases with obscure Ks. I also find FW less compelling when the Aff is disclosed and it is a common argument (e.g., Anti-Blackness).

Theory: Perfectly fine with theory, less fond of frivolous theory in LD. In LD, I find the RVI compelling, but not in policy.

T/Topicality: I prefer reasonability. I want you to elaborate on the T shell and explain how the Aff is abusive.

Tricks: I was open to trick debate for one tournament and did not enjoy my job evaluating; if you want to run them in front of me, go ahead, but it might be a coinflip with my decision.

CP/PICs: Thoroughly explaining the net benefit and showcasing the CPs competitiveness to the affirmative are my primary wants from CP debaters.Most CP debates I judge become messy because the debaters can't articulate these two key components throughout the round (more so in LD than policy).

Traditional (LD): I have no preference if you use a singular standard or the Value/Value-Criterion format. Winning FW is a significant component of conventional LD, but it doesn't always guarantee a round victory.

PF/Parli

At this moment, I believe my TLDR blurbs offer enough clarity on my judging style. I will expand on these later. I will split this section when I judge these events more frequently at the secondary level.

Congress

I have not judged this format at the national circuit level, so I do not understand the judging norms.

-

Closing

I hope this helps you as a debater formulate a stronger understanding of how to rank me for the tournament. I was once in your shoes, so I understand the need for a thorough paradigm. If you have any further questions about my paradigm, please ask me before the round starts. Beyond that, if you made it this far, feel free to tell me your favorite song you have been listening to; I am trying to diversify my tastes :).

Hello debaters! I'm Amrit and I have experience in Policy Debate and PF.

For the email chain: amritdas8015@gmail.com [ALL ROUNDS] AND stuypolicydebatedocs@gmail.com [FOR POLICY ROUNDS ONLY]

Basic Rules:

• Please address me as “Judge” in your speeches and throughout the round

• Please be kind to others in the debate room(this includes me, your opponents, and spectators/coaches)

• No type of racism, sexism, slurs, or any other discrimination is allowed and I will immediately end the round at the end of the speech as well as giving 0 speaks for perpetrators. I will also deduct .1 - .2 speaks for profanity.

• Be tolerant of all types of arguments except those that are explicitly discriminatory. You should feel as comfortable running/going against a KAFF as you should running/going against a common "right-wing" argument.

• Please don’t lie about what you said in the round to get away with a dropped argument or missed cards in a speech(it looks very poorly on you, your team, and your coach; your speaks will be lowered)

• I entrust you to honestly keep prep. If you go over a grace period of 10secs even once the max speaks you and your teammate is getting is 27.5

• If I have to say "clear" more than twice during your speech you need to send all your analytics in the email chain.

Policy:

I am receptive to ALL arguments whether that be K/KAffs or normal policy. I just want to hear a good debate with good reasoning, CLASH, and conclusions/impacts made clear.

I am also Tech > Truth(except for completely false claims that can’t be proved) but I still really like it if you could provide numerical statistics/experiences(added speaks). Additionally, Truth is very convincing provided you haven’t dropped something completely and in case both teams are on top of their games in Tech I will have to vote on Truth.

For the AFF:

• please make your plan text clear(I like it when it is at the top of the 1AC rather than in the middle and please DO NOT SPREAD your plan text)

• There should be a really clear sequence and train of thought in your case: Inherency -> Impacts -> Solvency

• There should be extensions at the top of every speech after the 1AC(please don’t repeat to me the tagline-explain why argument is important)

• KAFFs(super rare in Novice Debate): you have a great burden of proof to prove 3 things:

1. You are topical

2. You give the opponents enough grounds without destroying debate

3. That the issue with the literature/policy debate exists (I prefer some degree of Truth in this K even though I typically will vote on Tech) , is harmful, and YOU are feeling the effects

• Please don’t read a KAFF unless a member of your team has a connection to it(ex: reading Model Minority and one of your teammates is Asian) as it is quite fair for the NEG to bring up how you aren’t affected by this KAFF; the debate is over by the 2NC; and its really just clear you are coming here to take a win

• Line-by-line gets messy but please try to respond line-by-line and in an ORGANIZED MANNER(ideally in the order the NEG went)

• With me(and I'd like to believe with most judges), if you do 0 impact calc in the 1AR/2AR its a NEG ballot on Presumption, EVEN IF the NEG has also done 0 line-by-line.

For the NEG:

• Please show very clear and well-labeled link cards that is easily accessible for me(benefits everyone in round)

• For NOVICES: Remember to run case arguments on the NEG(a DA is off)

I flow the taglines I can hear. If you can’t orate your taglines properly I won’t have them on my flow when making my decision.

Again the basics come down to having clear lines of arguments that you can reasonably and cleanly defend. I am a fan of well-organized and well-labeled speech docs and you might get extra speaks for that.

If I don’t hear ANY Impact Calc in the Neg Block, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR from either the AFF or NEG you probably lost the round even if you were doing good on line-by-line.

CX: With me, it will always be an open CX. Please be mindful of whose turn it is to ask and please let people finish their statements. I value CX a lot and the clearer you explain your ideas the much easier you’ve made the case for me. Whatever you say in CX is binding(if you misspeak just clarify it WITHIN the CX that you misspoke...if you realize you misspoke later well I'm sorry). Also, I’m a debater- I can tell when you’re trying to buy time in CX; we are not Kamala Harris or Donald Trump where we can’t answer a single question straightforwardly in 2+mins. It really isn't cool, hurts your speaks, and hurts your case as you lose time in which you could more clearly explain your case.

If you find an argument that is not explicitly discriminatory(saying slurs, or obviously racist) you must prove why you feel it discriminatory and why I should vote against it.

Lastly, I really like recent articles and I especially love when you use a recent and applicable evidence in analytics. Extra speaks for you!

Debate is a learning space. There is no reason to be at each other’s throats or to "suck up" to me thinking it'll help you(yes, I've seen this as a competitor and I'm just a guy who's going to get annoyed with that). Ask questions at the end. I can stay as long as the next round starts answering questions. Obviously it's disappointing to lose, but hopefully my RFD and your gained experience will help you to win in the future.

Actually lastly(not important + if you’re reading this paradigm 8/10 times its too late for this): I value dressing formally/well in debate. Your first impression on me is boosted and that normally might result in an ever-so-slight boost in speaks

LD: LD is relatively similar to Policy. However, a few key things: please stay away from Philosophy arguments/Ks. Ks that are okay with me are the ones that are read in Policy(Cap, SetCol, AfroPess and other AntiBlackness, Model Minority etc). You do not be the certain identity to read the K. Obviously lower thresholds for Ks given shorter rounds. Please try your best to avoid LD-specific theories/tricks with me. I can judge Policy theories(Topicality, Conditionality, Frameworks). Honestly, if you explain the theory to me like I'm a lay judge with vague idea of what it does I can probably vote on it. Other than that, refer to my policy notes: judge instruction, impact calc, not spreading analytics are all good things with me.

PF: Same things apply for CX and in delivering the arguments. Aside that, I'm more of a lay judge and understand the basics of the topic but I should be able to deal with some theory, as a lot of PF theory has similar arguments in Policy, if it is argued well and clearly. I better not hear something near Policy-level spreading and if I do you're probably not winning as PF isn't Policy, you will also be receiving a flat, non-negotiable 25 speaks. Don't expect me to vote on Disclosure Theory if you don't read case arguments/cards responding to your opponents case.

I am a lay parent judge and have not judged any debates earlier.

I feel that though arguments are more important than style, style can't be ignored altogether. Style will include both structure and articulation of arguments. Arguments backed by facts and relevant examples are important. An innovative idea/argument will carry more weight than the more regular ones.

My email-id is: sd_ing@yahoo.com.

Me

I am a freshman at Columbia and debated policy for 4 years at Bronx Science.

Email: donovanj@bxscience.edu

TLDR

Tech>Truth

Line by Line>8 minute overviews

Clash>KvK>Policy

Clarity>Speed

Maybe your Baudrillard>Not your Baudrillard>Yes your Baudrillard

DO NOT BE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLESIT, ETC.

Proper

Top Level

Read whatever you want. I genuinely have zero issues with any arguments as long as they're neither exclusionary nor violent. I'll always do my best to fairly adjudicate the debate based on the flow and the flow alone. That being said, I spent the majority of my career as a K debater. Here are the most common arguments I read my last two years: Hegel, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Cybernetics, Bataille, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Cap, Security.

Clash

K v Policy debates are always enjoyable to watch AS LONG AS THEY ARE GOOD DEBATES. The worst thing in the world is a 2AC that is disorganized followed by a 2NC with a 6 minute overview and zero line by line. Above all, I value good clash, not jargon or big thesis level papers. This is not to say no overviews or not totally keeping the debate 100% organized is bad(I almost always read an overview), but I do want to see a general structure kept throughout the debate.

I think that the best K debating occurs when the NEG decides to go 1 off the K. Anything else just detracts from your time spent developing the argument. I will visibly cringe in your face if I open the 1NC and have to pull out a ridiculous amount of flow paper.

Framework is probably the most important part of the debate for me, despite how inconsequential it becomes 99% of the time. In most clash debates I've watched, the AFF and NEG start on totally different sides of the framework spectrum, only to leave a ton of ambiguity by the last speeches, causing most judges to just take a middle ground approach. I hate that, not because of the middle ground, but because of the general consensus that framework for some reason requires the least amount of judge instruction. I genuinely don't care what you have me do with the aff and the K, whether it’s mooting, no reps links, or some weird synthesis between the two -- just please say it and give me judge instruction. Anything else forces me to intervene with absolutely zero clue as to how I should fairly evaluate the K versus the AFF.

I like strong link debating. That means that if your idea of a link is a 20 second rant about how "aff bad because it’s hyperreal" or something, I'm not the judge for you. Spend time fleshing out your links as well as their impacts. Pull quotes. Do turns case analysis. Contextualize the links to the AFF's scenario -- don't read your prewritten blocks and call it a day. Explain how the alt solves. Explain how it interacts with framework.

I think alternatives are important. Winning framework is almost never enough on its own unless you can explicitly justify it. That being said, my bar for what constitutes an alternative is literally just that it needs to solve something. I don't care how. I just want an explanation of how your vanguard party or fiated mindset shift or research shift or whatever does something.

I think AFF teams in these debates forget that the debate is literally about the AFF. In other words, stick to your guns. A lot of K debate is really just smoke and mirrors meant to confuse rather than explain. If you press K teams on their arguments, most of them fold or give some incoherent explanation. Sticking to explaining your AFF, weighing, and winning specific parts of the debate makes for a good front against the K.

KvK

I think a lot of what I said above applies here. I love K v K debates, but am often frustrated at the lack of clash. In the isolated confines of the debate round, I don't care if you know your theory of power like the back of your hand -- I care if you can contextualize it and clash with your opponents and their theory of power.

I think the aff gets the perm, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. That's partially because I believe it true that the perm usually wins 9/10 debates for the aff absent any real work beyond an abstract combination of two diametrically opposed theories. As such, I expect both a thorough explanation of the perm and its functionality from the aff in addition to a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity from the neg. You are setting yourself up for failure if you don't.

Overviews are chill, just don't use them as an excuse to dodge clash. The worst debating is when you read a long overview and then go down the flow saying "I answered that in the overview." I'm not your secretary. I will not do that work for you. You have been warned.

Alt solvency, impact calc, and strong link debating are the most important here. You're better off investing your time here rather than explaining why your way of understanding the world is correct.

I love a good old cap debate, but I also want to see your creativity. Maybe try something else?

High Theory

I decided to devote a special section to the infamous high theory debates here. My take is simple -- they can either be my favorite or my most despised debates to judge ever. While I never go into a debate with any preconceived notions, my opinion on these types of debates will be easily swayed by your knowledge of your literature base, your ability to keep the debate technical, and your ability to defend your argument absent jargon. My enjoyment of the debate will mainly depend on those factors. If you cannot defend your K beyond repeating "will to transparency go brrrrr," I will be thoroughly disappointed, and your speaks will reflect that.

As such, my threshold for these debates will be much higher as I not only have knowledge of many of the literature bases commonly read in debate, but am honestly sick of hearing barebones garbage like a 2 minute underhighlighted Baudrillard shell in the 1NC. That being said, do not let this deter you from reading these arguments in front of me if you genuinely want to debate them. I am more than open and honestly most excited to hear them IF RUN WELL.

K Affs v FW

I really only ever read K affs. I read a joke death star policy aff once and that was the only exception. Take that as you will.

In all honesty, I like K affs, but also think that 99% of them are probably cheating to some extent. TLDR, I think FW is probably true. That, however, has zero bearing on which way I'll vote.

For AFF teams, I think the best thing you can do is use your aff. A good K aff will always have reasons as to why either the form or content of debate is bad for some reason based in their theory of power. Whichever way you go, it's important to stick strong to it and maintain that narrative throughout the debate. I personally find criticisms that don’t go beyond mere “USFG Bad” offense unpersuasive. For me to vote for you (the K team) against a competent FW team, I require a coherent explanation as to why your offense supersedes procedural questions of fairness or their paradigm of clash.

For NEG teams, I personally believe that fairness is your best option here. 9/10 times, you’re fighting an uphill battle going for a clash based impact as your opponents not only debate FW almost every debate and are thus more well versed in its nuances, but also because fairness really just is the most straightforward impact in my opinion. Your opponents will almost always have a cheeky internal link turn to your arguments that you can usually just bypass with a fairness DA to their model/interp. I also just find a lot of impacts tied to clash like sabotage, movements, etc. very unpersuasive. That doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for a clash based impact if executed properly, nor does it mean I’m a hack for fairness. I personally believe that there are unique scenarios where both have their merits and the edge over the other.

TVA and SSD – I personally don’t have a lot of thoughts here. I think they are both defensive arguments that can bolster key points of negative offense, but are not enough for me to vote on in a vacuum.

Policy

I’ll admit here that these are probably the debates I’m least well versed in. That doesn’t mean I don’t know how to evaluate them, it just means that I have comparatively less experience here than I do in K debates.

That being said, here are my thoughts in no particular order:

For T, limits and predictability are both a sliding scale. I think of them both as circles around the topic that posses loosely defined borders.

You are annoying if you state “plantext in a vacuum solves” or “positional competition solves” without any further explanation.

Your T evidence probably sucks and is not contextualized to what you are talking about. Stop gaslighting.

I like good cheeky CPs.

Intrinsic perms are cool if you can justify them.

I have a high threshold for zero risk – I think unless something is straight up conceded, there is always a minimal risk. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to win in front of me, it just requires more work than saying the words.

Theory

I have zero reservations on voting for any argument, but I will internally laugh myself to death if I see something like A-Z spec in the 1NC.

Misc

I don’t think condo is bad as long as you can justify it. That, however, does not detract from my personal belief that the best debating happens in 1 off rounds.

Time your own speeches and prep. Also be honest about it.

No, you cannot “insert this rehighlighting here.”

Do not clip.

Do not piss me off trying to postround. You will not change my mind. I’m more than happy to give you constructive criticism, but I will not spend my weekend listening to you rant as to why you think I’m wrong.

Do not ask about speaks.

Do not make me adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

Do not be rude to your opponents or your partner.

Novices

1. Flow! It's the most important thing you can do in a debate.

2. Stick to what you are comfortable with.

3. Don't clip -- if you don't know what that is, ask me.

4. Practice good line by line -- refute your opponents rather than reading blocks all the time

5. Don't stick to your varsity's blocks. I understand that it can be hard to break dependency, but the best way to improve is to exercise your own creativity.

6. BE RESPECTFUL AND HAVE FUN!

As a judge, I focus on clarity, logical reasoning, and how well you engage with your opponent’s arguments. I’m looking for debaters who can present a strong, cohesive case, respond thoughtfully to challenges, and clearly explain why their position is the best. Both sides (Affirmative and Negative) should aim to make solid, well-supported arguments, engage with each other’s points, and show strategic thinking throughout the round.

1. Clarity: Present your points in a straightforward, organized way. I should be able to follow your values, criteria, and contentions easily.
2. Reasoning: Explain how your arguments connect to your value and why they matter. Logical and well-thought-out reasoning is key.
3. Engagement: Don’t just restate your case—engage directly with your opponent’s arguments. Show me you understand their points and have a reasoned response.
4. Impact: Help me see why your arguments matter in the real world. Show me why your position is more significant than your opponent’s.
5. Time Management: Use your time wisely. Make sure to cover all your key points, and leave time for a clear, concise summary at the end.

• Value & Criterion: The side that best defines, supports, and explains its value and criterion will have the upper hand.
• Clash: I’ll favor the team that effectively responds to their opponent’s arguments and demonstrates an understanding of the core issues in the debate.
• Issue Framing: The team that focuses on the most critical issues and shows how they matter will have a clear advantage.

• Personal Attacks: Keep it respectful. Focus on debating ideas, not attacking your opponent personally.
• Speed Over Clarity: Speak clearly and at a pace I can follow. Speed isn’t as important as ensuring your arguments are easy to understand.

This is a values debate, and I want to see which side can demonstrate their view of the issue is not only the best, but the most important. Make sure your arguments are clear, relevant, and well-supported with solid reasoning.

As a judge, I prioritize clarity, logical reasoning, and the ability to effectively engage with your opponent’s arguments. I am looking for debaters who can build a strong, cohesive case, respond to challenges, and clearly explain why their position is superior. In this round, I expect both the Affirmative and Negative sides to present well-supported arguments, engage in meaningful rebuttal, and demonstrate strategic thinking throughout the debate.

What I Value:

1. Clarity: Present your arguments in a clear, organized way. Make sure I understand your value, criterion, and contentions.
2. Reasoning: Explain how your arguments support your value and why they matter. Logical connections are important.
3. Engagement: Address your opponent’s points directly. Don’t just restate your case—engage with theirs.
4. Impact: Show why your arguments matter in the real world. Make it clear why your case is more important than your opponent’s.
5. Time Management: Use your time wisely. Ensure you present all your points and provide a clear summary at the end.

How I Decide:

• Value & Criterion: The side that better defines and supports their value and criterion will likely win.
• Clash: The side that effectively responds to their opponent’s arguments and engages with them will be favored.
• Issue Framing: The side that focuses on the most important issues and shows their relevance will have the advantage.

What I Don’t Value:

• Personal Attacks: Focus on the arguments, not personal attacks.
• Speed Over Clarity: Speak clearly enough that I can follow your points. Speed isn’t as important as clarity.

Final Notes:

This is a values debate. I’m looking for you to show why your view of the issue is the best and most important. Make sure your arguments are clear, relevant, and well-supported.

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

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

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

quick prefs:

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

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

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

tech>truth, if you cant extend an argument or warrant or it forces me into a paradox, i'm not voting on it

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

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

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

Who I am?

I am a traditional parent judge. Talk slow, strong, loud, clear, and passionate. When speaking use visual eye contact frequently and engage with the judge(s). When discussing an argument, be specific, support your argument, do not overcomplicate things, and make sense. (This is more important then how long and fast you talk for).

For LD

Reminder: I am a parent judge. Stay whole-res. and do not spread. If you spread (talking super fast), you will not win, regardless if you are winning the flow.

Do not run K’s, counter-plans, theory, etc. Stay true to debate and the resolution. I will judge on the flow; therefore, during rebuttals stay line-to-line or contention-to-contention. The easier it is to judge, the easier it is for you to win. Extend your arguments and your opponents. VC and Values are crucial to LD, use this in the round and it will be a factor in determining the win.

For PF

Similar to my stance on LD, know that I am a parent judge and I do not evaluate or know progressive debate. No spreading, talk clear, precise, and use eye-contact.

For Speech

Talk slow, strong, loud, clear, and passionate. When speaking use visual eye contact frequently and engage with the judge(s). When discussing an argument, be specific, support your argument, do not overcomplicate things, and make sense. When citing evidence, cite REAL evidence, and do not use the same news source 20 times throughout the speech.

Good Luck!

Given my newbness to this fascinating competitive exercise, I will have a very simple paradigm. I will be judging simply on clarity of argument. Also, it would be helpful if you would not read your arguments at hypersonic speeds and/or send them to me prior to the round.

I'm a parent judge, and I'm relatively new to judging. Below are some points to keep in mind:

- Case sharing is preferred but not required.

-Please, no spreading, kritiks, or progressive arguments.

- Please define keywords and terms.

- Please do an out-of-time roadmap and signpost where you are in the speech.

- Remember to keep your own time, but I will keep time as well.

- Be respectful and have fun!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm What Stands Out to Me :

Strong debates go beyond surface-level arguments and delve into the reasoning behind evidence. I appreciate when debaters break down their opponents’ evidence—whether by highlighting contradictions, exposing overgeneralizations or overly specific claims, or pointing out when it lacks proper reasoning. Instead of a simple “my evidence beats theirs” approach, show me why their evidence is flawed. This deeper level of analysis is persuasive and increases your chances of winning

Framework discussions are another key area. A full framework debate isn’t always necessary, especially if both sides’ impacts align or if the frameworks lead to the same outcomes. However, when you engage in framework debate, focus on the parts that truly matter and explain how they shape my evaluation of the round. Remember, conceding your opponent’s framework doesn’t automatically mean you lose—what matters is how you use it to frame the impacts in the round.

Consistency matters just as much. If your case relies on a philosophical argument, don’t shy away from defending its implications—even if they’re uncomfortable. For instance, if someone challenges utilitarianism for prioritizing the majority over the minority, defend that stance rather than retreating. Similarly, if you argue against consequentialism by claiming predictions are unreliable, don’t then cite studies based on predictive claims. Stay committed to your position, and I’ll take it more seriously.

Analogies are a tool I wish more debaters used. They can clarify your arguments, point out flaws in your opponent’s reasoning, or make your case more relatable. A well-crafted analogy not only helps me understand your position but also makes your arguments more compelling.

Finally, impact weighing is often what separates a clear win from a close round. Instead of broad statements like “this outweighs everything,” dive into specifics—explain why one impact is more significant than another. If you can tie your weighing directly to the framework, even better. Specific, nuanced weighing gives me the clarity I need to make a decision.

I prefer a slower, more deliberate style of debate. Clear and effective communication is essential, and a slower pace allows for better persuasion and stronger arguments. If you choose to speak quickly, it’s on you to ensure that I can follow along. If I miss something because it wasn’t clear, I won’t evaluate it.

Regarding prep time, I’m not a fan of flex prep.

Cross-examination exists for a reason, so save your questions for that time. You can ask for evidence during prep, but clarification questions should wait for

CX : Argumentation Preferences I’m not a fan of policy-style debates in LD. If your case revolves around an intricate policy plan with speculative links leading to improbable extinction scenarios, it’s going to lose me. Stick to debating the resolution instead of inventing new ones. If you’re more interested in policy debate, consider competing in that format. Evidence ethics is something I take very seriously. Misrepresenting evidence or cutting cards dishonestly undermines the debate and ruins the experience for everyone. If I catch it, I will intervene—even if no one points it out in the round.

When it comes to kritiks, I’m willing to evaluate them, but there are conditions. For pre-fiat kritiks, you need a clear role of the ballot and specific links to the affirmative’s performance in the round. Vague links or underdeveloped alternatives won’t convince me.

Post-fiat kritiks are fine, but I still expect well-developed alternatives and clear warrants. Topicality and theory arguments are acceptable, but they need to be well-warranted and directly impacted. I favor reasonability over strict interpretations and believe theory should only address truly abusive cases—not be used as a strategic tactic.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

How I Evaluate PF In Public Forum,

I default to an “on-balance” standard for comparing impacts. If you introduce a framework, make sure to explain why it’s relevant and how it shapes my evaluation.

A simple assertion without justification won’t carry much weight. Topicality arguments are fine, but I’ll only consider the impact of “ignore the argument,” not “drop the team.”

Similarly, I’m not interested in theory arguments in Public Forum and won’t vote on them.

Arguments to Avoid Certain arguments don’t belong in Public Forum. Counterplans, kritiks, or anything relying on fiat are out of place in this format. Both sides should focus on fulfilling their equal burdens of proof without resorting to overly technical debate styles Judging Philosophy Public Forum is designed to be accessible and straightforward. Because of this, I’m more willing to step in if I feel an argument is unfair or goes against the spirit of the format.

Keep your arguments clear, focused, and appropriate for PF, and you’ll be in a much better position to win.

So, my priorities as a judge are clarity, consistency, and strategic argumentation. If you focus on these elements, you’ll make it easier for me to evaluate the round and increase your chances of earning my ballot.

Prefs (In order of familiarity, will vote on anything to the best of my ability):

2-Theory/Phil

3-K/tricks

4-esoteric K/phil/LARP

I truly don't care what you read-read what you want to and I will do my very best to evaluate it fairly.

Email: henryji327@gmail.com AND stuylddebate@gmail.com

Please send to both-if you don't I won't open the doc.

My name is Henry Ji and I graduated from Stuyvesant High School in 2024. I have not thought about debate in over a year now, so I would appreciate it you went slower. I did circuit LD for 4 years, and I read mostly theory, phil, and sometimes K and tricks. I default to no RVIs, DTD, CI, truth testing, and P/P negating. I will listen to any argument as long as it is not racist/sexist/etc. Feel free to email me if you have any other questions pre-round. Please try to start rounds on time/set up the chain quickly/not waste too much time. I would prefer you go at like 61% speed or so-have not listened to spreading in over a year. Plus, I am not a great flower. Also, it would be good if you spent a little more time explaining things to me as I haven't been in debate in a long time. If there's anything that's unclear or you want to ask me, feel free to just email me or ask before round.

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is David Jia.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args

-I prefer to see traditional style debate, i am very new

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

I have never competed in public form

Goodluck and have fun!

emaill: davidjia39@gmail.com

pf at the toc - paraphrasing is probably bad and disclosure is probably good. defense is not sticky (stop being lazy). would prefer not to judge tricks, but consider this a green light for just about anything else.

hi i'm neel. i competed in a bit of circuit pf and circuit ld at plano east in texas. i'm now a third year at michigan (go blue) where i am not affiliated with the debate program. i made a couple of useful resources (pf forward and the debate group) back in my debate heyday.

gimmeurcards@gmail.com for the chain please.

i think smart debating > everything else - a good debater/team is one that makes truthfully sound arguments and executes an in-round strategy with technical skill. i think the tech vs. truth binary is a little silly, but if you extend an argument with a claim, a warrant, and an impact until the end of the round, i will consider it when making my decision. this rule is blind to the substance of this argument except for death good and arguments that are morally reprehensible (which i will not evaluate).

i largely debated policy arguments and the kritik, and as such, i have largely judged policy arguments and the kritik. i'm a decent judge for theory. i'm not a great judge for phil (due to a lack of experience) and i'm a bad judge for tricks (because i dislike judging these rounds).

i think ballot painting matters a ton - your backhalf should very clearly explain the argument you are going for, why you have won that argument, and why it means that you win the debate. i'm a fan of short overviews that accomplish this goal.

i will disclose my decision and speaks - feel free to shoot me an email if this doesn't happen/if you have questions.

I am a parent judge.

Slow down and articulate your points clearly. Explain to me why have won the debate, and why you deserve my ballot. Please time yourselves.

Please do not read overly complicated arguments as I will definitely have a hard time following you.

I will give speaker points based on how well you articulate yourself and present arguments through rebuttal.

I won't be disclosing my decision so feel free to leave after the debate ends. I will also not be looking at docs that are sent during the round.

Please relax and be nice to your opponent, good luck debating!

make an email chain:ikatz116@gmail.com

#deBAYbies

debated policy and LD in HS for two years at Cypress Bay, first year judge; studying at UF

Overall:

Most of all be respectful.. don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, or insult your opponent personally beyond their debating. I'm mostly cool with judging anything, but I'm not the best for certain args, although I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted well enough and won on the flow. Cool w/spreading, signpost clearly, not just between flows but also on different part of the flow, i.e. on the K, on the perm, on the links, etc. I'll say "clear" twice or three times max. Don't spread analytics, I'll prolly miss them if not miss the warranting. Also, debate really is not that serious. You leave the room and no one knows what you're talking about. If there's something you should take away from it, it's a passion to get locally involved and make a change.. live up to the prescriptions you make. Also, don't call me judge, excessively.. preferable you don't address me at all. I won't dock speaks for not reading/adhering to my paradigm but my paradigm is the guide to gaining them.

Pref Rankings:

1--K

2--LARP/Theory

3--Trad

4--trix/phil

Quick Pref Charts:

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

Tech -----------------X-------------------------------Truth

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Condo ---X------------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

A2 --------------------------------------------X AT

A2 X-------------------------------------------- @

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants -------X------------------------------------- Extending authors

(what I like to judge) Alt ------X-------------------------------------------------- "Reject the Aff"

(what is probably better tactically) Alt ------------------------------------------X-------------- "Reject the Aff"

Personality ------X--------------------------------------- Doc-bot #00015

One off, case X--------------------------------------------- One million billion off case positions, case

Fairness is an impact ---X----------------------------- Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff -----------------------------X- Presumption neg

Presumption -------X------------------------------- Never votes on presumption

Better ev ----X------------------------------------- More ev

Disclose ------X---------------------------------- "it's new"

New affs bad ------------------------X---------------- New affs good

Line by line-----------X--------------------------implied warrants/answer

Getting the shakes before a drop --------------------------------------------X The days passed, the heat grew

Argentine punk rock undercommons ------X------------------------------------- Generic K-aff

Debate is a game ----------------X--------------------------- Debate is actively harmful

Theory:

Clear interps, vios, standards.. don't spread through the standards I'll miss a few. You're good to pull out reject X one-liners from constructives as long as the extension clarifies the violation and the standards. I lean towards gut check bad theory.. you have to prove either that the harms in round were significant and/or that its a bad practice for debate at large. Give me a narrative for in round harms, give me a description of the telos of debate under their practices. A lil nitpick here but don't js name drop severance or reps without explaining the impact in the extension.. Why is severance bad? Whenever you're answering, don't just extend your standards, engage with theirs, at least defensively, don't just extend a block and expect me to discard the flow.

Condo is chill but I can be convinced otherwise, love a good condo debate, but if it gets into arbitrary stuff like 2 vs 3 conditional advocacies it's a wash on my flow. Dispositional advocacies can be kicked unless the aff puts offense on that flow.

I hate heavy underviews and spikes.. my bar for answering them is below the ground, but there should be some answer.. whether you group, go line by line, or read a new shell.

I generally think theory precedes the K unless I get an explanation for why the argument the kritik makes precedes their access to the shell or turns the shell.

Kritiks:

I debated a weird range of Ks in my career, but I'm most familiar with Anthro, Cap & Racial Cap, Pess, a lil Baudrillard, Set Col, Psychoanalysis etc. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of lit, especially pomo stuff, but I'd love to check it out and am open to judging it... make sure there's substantial warranting. I prefer a shorter overview and a lot of warranting in the line by line.. make me understand the kritik through the answers. I think embedded defense in the overview is also fine but I prefer lbl, even better if you could do both.

Stay away from buzzwords.. give me a thorough explanation in the line by line of your scholarship.. the goal shouldn't be to confuse or to be ahead, instead lean towards engaging debate about epistemic practices. If the goal of the K is education and shifting conversation, it should be understandable.

Perms on the kritik should be well warranted, I won't vote on an extension of a perm if there isn't an explanation of its viability or how voting for the perm doesn't trigger their offense. Also, perms are a test of competition, and not offense for the aff. I prefer offensive answers to the perm, put several DAs on the perms, don't just say they sever their reps if you have the time. Also, perm double bind is beautiful and underutilized; however, there should be an explanation of the perm beyond the warranting for the double bind if you're going for it; i.e, perm double bind - [x] - do the aff then the alt, or do the aff and the alt, etc.

Link debate goes hand in hand with the perm, if they win the no link then the perm is warranted and viable. If you link you lose only if they win the impact debate, and warrant/frame the K as a terminal link DA. Links should be specific, but this doesn't mean they can't be to institutions.. this does mean that you should pull out moments in cross, and in the aff, that link to the K. I want a thorough explanation about how their specific epistemic practices trigger your impacts, the bar for winning a no link on a generic link with a generic extension is low, but I lean very heavily towards a proper, specific, warranted link.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Epistemically, materially, for this round, and for debates on the topic at large.

On framing, I think the aff should have to defend their epistemic practices, but simultaneously that they get to weigh the impacts of the aff. The K is an indict on your scholarship, but a response includes challenging the K's epistemic practices, and extending/weighing your impacts through the round. Usually, whoever you impact author is didn't write an article on the end of the world for giggles, there's genuine warranting and reasoning that you can extend beyond the scholarship indict.

"Fiat is illusory" is a fact, not a claim. Explain why that should, or shouldn't matter.

K solves your impacts is not the same as a floating PIK. The PIK is the alt includes your plan. K solves your impacts is separate, and generally fair. Answer their alt. lmao.

Alt's should be THOROUGHLY explained. You can drop it and go for the K as a link DA, and that's how I evaluate any K with a "reject the aff" alt, but if you keep the alt, you should answer their offense in depth with a mix of evidence and explanation of the alt's telos. Alt shouldn't be a litany of buzzwords like "embrace the mestizo mentality" (NINA!), there should be an explanation about what that materially represents and why the ballot is key. Don't be shy in cross, aff or neg, question what you don't understand, and answer to the best of your capacity, don't be coy unless it's funny and appropriate.

K-Aff:

Most of the stuff from the K block applies. Give me a thorough explanation of your solvency mechanism, your links, and your impacts/theory of power. You should do this, preferably, in a shorter overview and more in well warranted lbl answers on the case flow. Bar for answering ballot isn't key, education is irrelevant, and already published is low, but there needs to be an answer. Ballot PIKs and Academy Ks on the K-aff are super strong, but there needs to be an impact and a distinction between an aff and neg ballot. I most likely won't vote on a one liner on case as an answer to the entire aff.

Death could be good. lmk.

The K-aff should very clearly challenge the educational practices of the resolution. You're rejecting a juridical reading of the resolution because it propagates a set of impacts and a system of oppression/exploitation in the research practices and discussions it generates. Instead, you're proposing a shift of the stasis point of the resolution, a shift in the reading of the resolution that allows the K-aff mechanism to be topical, so that the resolution's knowledge production avoids the violence you outlined. Use your 1ac links to the rez as answers to their interp on fw.

If you're K-aff is more complex, give me a meaty overview, or preferably, very meaty replies on the lbl. I won't vote on something that I can't explain back to you. Clearly grouping and organizing the debate helps with this greatly and will boost your speaks.

On fw, clearly explain why a juridical reading of the resolution is necessary and the only stable stasis point for knowledge production. Explain ways that the resolution can still produce the knowledge they advocate for without shifting research in a way you can't prepare for. Go for in round harms and for debate practices at large. TVA should be a full plan text, and should be warranted.. please don't say the TVA is "The USFG ought to burn itself down." Also, Interpretation should be clear, violation should be specific and linked to the interpretation, and the standards should be clearly linked to both.

LARP

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Multi-plank counterplans, PICs, qpq is all chill but I can be convinced otherwise. perms are a test of competition. should explain why severance is bad don't just name drop. Wakanda CP and things of that nature are cool but need to be well warranted, and need to be validated as a model of debate. Sentence theory in the 1ar is fine but if your going for it needs to be expanded on and most of the warranting should've been in the sentence.

DAs should have a clear link chain. Debate should collapse mainly to weighing impacts, ends up being a game of the risk of the aff and the risk of the DA, and you should explain it to me that way. Signpost when you're on the UQ, the link debate, and the impact debate, overview should be short and warranting should show up in the lbl. Pull out specific warrants in your own and the other teams cards and explain how they interact, to push me one way or the other on the risk debate.

Phil/Tricks:

don't know much about it. Open to anything, as long as its not blatantly abusive. Preferably phil is explained well, I won't vote on it if I don't understand it. Trix should be explained in cross when asked, or else your ethos tanks and its hard to buy after.

Cross:

If you're confused, ask. Good debates mean you're on the same page. Cross is binding and can be used as offense, to an extent. Ask leading questions, use evidence in your questions, pull out quotes from their cards, scrutinize their case and garner offense from their answers, or at least tank their ethos. As the person answering, answer clearly, and answer fully. You can be funny but don't be disrespectful, and answer their questions, or you're tanking your own ethos.

Bonus:

sage wins the TOC

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I find it challenging to follow arguments presented via spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions, or when I am the only lay judge in the panel. In such situations, I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument. That said, I have found it extremely helpful when debaters invest about 10 seconds of their speeches to dramatically slow down to emphasize their most salient point.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful to the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

I am a parent judge but will try my best to adapt and evaluate everything.

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit96@yahoo.com

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.

I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

Key notes:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.

3. Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence

4. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.

5. Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.

6. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

7. Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.

8. I don't prefer extinction, but I don't mind as long as you have a clear link chain.

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland, taught at NSD Texas and Flagship '24, and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior year if you want to see what arguments I read.

Conflicts: Langham Creek Highschool - Heights Highschool

Separately Conflicted: Cypress Woods AZ

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain, please title - - - Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg).

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

4/4/25 - King RR

WASHED.

• Don't know the topic.
• Go slow on analytics.
• Best for clash debates, IMPACT v IMPACT. i.e fairness v pess, too slow for middle ground things such as tvas, perms, other deflationary tricks etc.

12/20/24 - Strake

HIGHER SPEAKS IF YOU GIVE ME FOOD.

30 speaks if you tko,

10/10/24 - DTA Finals Bid

Don't know the topic.

p bad at flowing now ig, slow on lbl if u like to subpoint spam, make sure to signpost card -> card -> analytic -> analytic -> card -> analytic transitions, signpost next off.

2/23/24 - Central Texas National Qualifiers

I will not care if you read progressive arguments against lay debaters, it is not your fault. I will care however if you take too long, I BEG that you keep speeches as SHORT as possible (i,e going for one line tricks, for 10 seconds and sitting down.) and do not overcover anything, this will be best for everyone in the room.

12/13/23 - STRAKE UPDATE

Too many of y'all are going for unsubstantive hidden tricks in front of me because I evaluate them, and I've downed them every single time. PLEASE, do not split the 2NR/2AR because I guarantee you that you're NOT doing enough work on them and you will NOT be happy with my decision when I decide to not pull the trigger on it because there's been a very SHALLOW extension.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

1. I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
2. ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
3. big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
4. i will keep note of cx.
5. things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
6. I will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.

A. More on this, I do not find myself voting on offense that isn't filtered through frameworks because I do not understand how to evaluate that offense in reference to the rest of the debate, this includes things like going for IVIs without weighing it's impacts and offensive tricks like GCB that are not filtered through truth testing (specifically different than presumption permissibility triggers that zero offense on other pages).

B. In debates involving lots of layering, I've found it increasingly hard to weigh between internal links to framework justifications like jurisdictive constraints, I've concluded that this is due to a lack of clash and judge instruction. Before giving your NR/AR, ask yourself, why does my weighing justification to [x impact] sequence their weighing justification to [y impact]? I find too many debaters relying on phrases like a K 2NR telling me to "overcorrect neg for ideological bias" without explaining why that should sequence a 2AR telling me to "hack aff due to time skew".

C. I also seem to be always voting on a risk of offense unless there's an explicit presumption trigger, in debates with low warranting threshold particularly tricks ones, I will not simply just strike off arguments if I don't understand them when both sides are doing a lack of explanation and thus concluding in a presumption ballot, I instead will find a risk of offense on either side given the little explanation I have.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell slow if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first experience judging, although I have a background in technical communications.

I would describe myself as a traditional judge, and prefer a debate centered on understandable, reasonable arguments. I believe that speakers should emphasize skills of communication and public speaking during the debate, and that the essence of strong argumentation is built on logical reasoning that is backed by evidence and is easy to understand.

The key for my ballot is to develop a clear position and prove why it is the most important of the round through persuasive argumentation and evidence, and to demonstrate that the strategies, approaches, and presentations would be persuasive in real-world scenarios. For my own line of work, I debate daily with patent examiners of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on whether inventions are patentable, and occasionally with administrative patent judges on whether some patents should be invalidated. I also wrote scientific and engineering papers to be reviewed and judged by peers and similarly reviewed/debated with other scientists and engineers on their research articles.

I am not likely to vote on debaters who spread or use dense technical jargon; if you can explain the argument simply in the context of the round clearly, however, I can evaluate different types of argumentations. Clarity is key, and I prefer slower speakers who can present fewer points more profoundly compared others who try squeezing as many points as possible to "win" on technicality. In addition, participants should keep their own timing during the debate.

Good luck!

Introduction

Hello! My name is Mukudzeiishe Madzivire (he/him/his). I am a second-year student at Columbia University studying Political Science. I currently compete for Columbia Debate Society in mostly BP and some APDA, while coaching and judging WSDC. Please feel free to email me atmm6431@columbia.edu for a full debating and judging CV should you wish.

General Information

1. Be nice - Debate as a sport is made infinitely more enjoyable when debaters are kind and exercise compassion with each other. This speaks not only to how you engage with other speakers, but also how you engage with their material. Be charitable in your engagement, and gracious in all other interactions.

2. Be equitable - Good debating relies on our collective ability to overcome biases and stereotypes, exercising respect for the personhood of everyone in the room, debaters and judges alike. While I do not make equity calls except in the most extreme of cases, I will not hesitate to call out any inequitable behaviour in rounds and report it to the responsible individuals in the tournament.

3. Be clear - Simply, if I cannot understand your arguments (and I will try very hard to!), I cannot credit them. Particularly for formats such as PF, LD and Policy, I expect you to exercise greater care in clarifying how arguments should be evaluated and compared. This is especially necessary if you intend to run theory. If you explain your theory to me clearly and patiently, I will credit it. Naturally, do not spread, do not abbreviate without explanation, etc. Conversational, or slightly above conversational pace, is fine by me.
   
   Additional Information

1. My approach to evaluating arguments is in Truth > Impact > Weighing. This means, for example, that I will credit an argument credited to be true without impacts or weighing over an argument with impacts and weighing that isn’t proven to be true. Truth refers to any combination of empirical proof, revealed preference analysis, likelihood analysis, and any warranting you deem necessary to prove truth to the AIV.

2. I weigh out arguments based on what I am instructed to do in the debate, with the following order of prioritization: Weighing using what both sides explicitly agree on as important > Weighing using what one side explicitly describes as important that isn’t contested by the other side > Weighing using what both teams imply is important > Weighing using what one team implies is important that isn’t contested > Weighing using what the AIV cares about i.e., intervention. In short, tell me, as unambiguously as possible, what to prioritize and why, and I will default to that in my judgment if it is reasonable.

3. For motions requiring highly specialized knowledge of a particular thematic area, I will credit teams and speakers who make a fair effort at clarifying the motion and its associated comparatives to speakers and judges alike. If, by your assessment, the average intelligent voter is unlikely to know what the motion is about and why it matters, do the work to clarify this.

Other Formats

While I rarely judge other formats, I will on occasion. In this case, I will read the format manual before judging - or refer to more experienced judges’ perspectives where a manual is not available - and stick as closely as possible to that in my judging.

Because my background is in WSDC and BP debating, my default judging persona is the average intelligent voter (AIV). When required to, I can judge tabula rasa but will need you to outline to me what a tabula rasa evaluation of your argument and its impacts looks like - tabula rasa is relative - and, if sufficiently warranted, I will be pleased to credit your material.

Additionally, because I have never debated in the American high school circuit, I am unfamiliar with acronyms and jargon such as Ks. Equally, I am unfamiliar with circuit norms surrounding how particular theory is evaluated. For your safety, do not run Ks unless you are certain you have the time, energy, and patience to explain them to me. Similarly, while I'm more comfortable with evaluating theory, I will need you to be crystal clear as to what the theory is, how it works, and how/why it applies in a given round.

I will not evaluate every piece of evidence that you run. I expect then that you will (a) select appropriate references and (b) do not misrepresent or fabricate evidence. If evidence is contentious, I will ask to see it and vote on it, but it is unlikely to be round deciding.

Over time, if I judge more of other formats, I will happily update my paradigm to reflect this.

Hi, my name is Neelima Namburi.

I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. It would be nice if you could send your speech docs before you speak.

Email: namburin2020@gmail.com

In my judging, I prioritize three things.

1. Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
2. Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
3. Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.

Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!

I am a former speech competitor and current speech & debate coach. I lean on the traditional/lay side. I want slow, methodical debate. I want to hear your ARGUMENTS first, your EVIDENCE is second. Debate is not a "game" where you play as many cards as you can and see which ones make it through.

No K's / Theory. Stay on topic.

Be respectful, no use of foul language.

Be sure to weigh impacts - paint a view of your world vs. the opposing world.

It is more convincing when you know your own case. It is less convincing if you are rattling off a card or argument that you did not write yourself (and that I likely heard in the previous round).

I will not disclose my decision unless the tournament requires me to do so.

I am a new, parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly and explain what you're doing during the round. Signposts are helpful.

I'm willing to vote on tech debate as long as it and the jargon are explained clearly. I'll evaluate any well made argument.

he/him/his

I'm studying business sustainability at Kelley and was Var Captain of PF at Dougherty Valley High School from 2022-2023. I've debated PF for 5 years and Policy/LD for 1. 3 career TOC bids, Quarterfinalist at CHSSA States.

Tech>Truth

I'd rather you speak fast and frontline than speak slow and extend over ink❗

For my ballot (PF) ...

I use whatever viable arguments on my flow to visualize both scenarios but you're supposed to guide me into choosing one by explaining what reasons make it comparatively better than the alternative. Your scenario could be a paradise but if you don't tell me why I should choose that paradise over the alternative, I'll use my own biases which I really don't like doing.

Signpost only where you're starting from.

For jargon, don't say an argument is a turn or prereq if you're not entirely sure what it is because it makes everything unnecessarily confusing for everyone, just explain it.

I'll evaluate theory (not friv) and kritiks but make sure you know how to run them properly and explain them well.I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, make sure it's flowable and send speech docs.

Please don't ask for insane amounts of evidence just for extra prep time (I'll know if you don't reference any of the evidence in your speech), especially for online tournaments.Also, don't say you have evidence when you don't, and then give uncarded evidence or a URL when your opponents ask for it. You don't need evidence for every analytic if it's warranted well. Evidence ethics has been getting crappier every year; everything you claim your card says should be explicitly said in the article. That being said, I'll evaluate good evidence > warranting without evidence any day.

In addition to defense, at least respond to turns in second rebuttal because if they're extended, I'll consider them offense for the other side (given they're weighed and implicated as such).

Start weighing in second rebuttal and first summary and weigh all your turns and offense comparatively with your opponent's offense.

Clear link extensions in the first and second summary.

Collapse on one or two points per side preferably, unless your opponents extend all their contentions and you're forced to respond to all of them in summary.

Don't bring up anything new in final (cross applications, new evidence, etc). I won't consider it and may drop your speaks.

Speaks start at 27.5: If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or offensive to anyone in the round, I'll drop your speaks significantly. I'll also reduce speaks if you consistently go overtime by more than the grace period of 15 seconds.

Have fun and try your best!

If you have questions after your round, please ask or email me at rikinsmail@gmail.com. You can postround me (if you have valid concerns) but it won't change the already submitted ballot.

Policy/LD:

If I end up judging policy/ld, add me to the email chain. I'm not familiar with the new policy/ld topic so it would be really helpful if you explain your arguments well and impact them out well. For policy, I'm also ok with you running Ks, K Affs, Theory, or CPs but please no frivolous theory.

Not actively coaching anywhere at this time. I typically judge a couple tournaments a year split between LD and Policy.

I have 2 years of high school LD debate, 2 years of high school policy, and 2 years of college parli & LD experience. I coached every debate event in Nebraska over the course of 10 years in various Nebraska high schools. I'm comfortable judging all events, but the paradigm is oriented towards LD and Policy debaters. Absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the rounds about my judging practices. I spend most tournaments behind the scenes these days in the tab room.

Speed - This will be challenging in the digital debate era. I would recommend starting at 75% of your top speed and working your way up. I will call clear if I can't hear you (either due to speed or due to technical issues). The most important thing if you want to speed read in front of me is that you MUST be organized. Number or label your arguments, clearly indicate when you are moving to the next flow/case, etc. and use those references as the debate continues.

Fiat - I handle this different in LD and Policy. I will evaluate arguments about how fiat isn't real or doesn't matter in policy debate, but my default paradigm is that fiat exists in every policy round. The opposite is true of Lincoln Douglas debate where I do not believe that fiat exists by default. If you choose to, for example, read a counter plan in LD against a traditional values case, the burden will be on you to bridge the theory gap and prove that fiat should exist in LD.

Truth matters and I will not tolerate racism, sexism, etc.

I debated in LD for Hunter College High School for four years and graduated in 2017. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, go slower for virtual debates, and be nice to your opponent!

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as it is warranted. I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. That said, here are my preferences:

• Please explicitly weigh and explain how your arguments interact with your opponents', otherwise I won't know how to prioritize arguments and will likely end up intervening.
• Big picture framing is incredibly helpful. It's best when this is very specific about the arguments read in round; generic overviews often muddy the waters.
• I reserve the right to not vote for claims that I don’t understand/that are not justified. Your opponent shouldn't lose for dropping a one-liner if it has no justification/doesn't meet the threshold of being an argument.
• It's hard to flow spreading on Zoom. Please go slower than you would in person! I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times, I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks. I also haven't judged LD in a few years, so my ear for spreading is also worse than it used to be. It's very helpful to have moments when you slow down a bit, especially for overviews.
• I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents' arguments. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
• Prep time ends when your opponent & I receive the document.
• I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out.
• I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
• If you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out.
• I default to thinking that embedded clash is good, though you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them.
• If you have questions about my decisions, I'm very happy to answer them. I often don't mention every argument I considered in my RFD, and am happy to clarify more specifics about my thinking if it's helpful to you.
• Please don't be late :(
• I'll give you slightly higher speaks if you say 'I' instead of 'we'.

Theory

• If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them.
• I dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded.
• Slow down for interps/counterinterps.
• If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it.

Framework

• I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy FW preclusion arguments.
• Please weigh!

Ks

• Please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I don't know what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always helpful.
• My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication.

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

• Innovative, interesting, & well-developed arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
• Smart & strategic decisions
• Effective use of CX
• High argument quality
• Clear overviews/crystallization

Things that will get you low speaks:

• Not disclosing
• Tricks
• Being shifty
• Lots of spikes/blippy arguments
• Super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
• Not understanding your own positions
• Being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude, go slower, and try to make sure that the round is educational for everyone
• Academic dishonesty

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I coached LD in various places & coached PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

• Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
• The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
• People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
• I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
• Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
• I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
• I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
• I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

• I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
• I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
• I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
• If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
• Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
• If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

• I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
• Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

I am an APDA debater who has been debating for the past 6 years. I have a lot of experience with parliamentary tournaments on the East Coast, along with some international competitions in BP.

Please signpost! It makes things so much easier for me to follow.

Talk at a comfortable pace as long as you are sure that I can understand you.

Remember to be calm and try your best! Have fun with it, and no matter what the result is you can only learn.

Parent judge. I’ve judged a decent amount but I’d prefer you not to spread. Please speak normal speed. It would be extremely helpful to define key words and terms at the beginning of your first speeches. Keep track of your own time. Please give me voters and weigh well.

I prefer you running a traditional case. Basic counter plans are probably fine. Feel free to send me your docs, feiluqian@gmail.com.
Good luck.

JF 25 Update: I have next to 0 topic familiarity. Would heavily advise that you err on the side of over explanation and make clear any topic specific jargon / acronyms.

I coach withDebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Hi! I'm Yesh. I competed for 4 years at San Mateo, qualling to the TOC 4x w/ 27 career bids reaching quarters along with championing some tournaments (Glenbrooks, Bronx, Lexington, etc). I'm now a freshman at Berkeley.

Email chain: yeshraofc@gmail.com

I always thought paradigms were far too long so I'll try and keep this short. I will gladly evaluate any argument that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. My only preference is that you read the arguments you understand and enjoy debating. Debate is a lot more fun when debaters get to experiment with the strategies they've spent time working on. Please don't adapt to what you think I may be better for. I read/went for almost everything throughout my career from policy heavy strategies, to K affs, all the way to niche phil/theory.

That being said, well explained arguments (regardless of content) are both more enjoyable to listen to and easier to win.

I have experience both reading and debating against most argument styles with the one exception being dense postmodern literature. If this is something you're reading, just be clear about explanation and judge instruction.

Rather than diving into specific thoughts about arguments, here are some general things that I look for when rendering a decision.

1] Judge instruction should be at the top of your rebuttal speeches. I've always admired the ability to isolate specific pieces of contestation that you believe are most important and explaining why you are winning them.

2] I don't flow rebuttal speeches off a doc. I'm okay at flowing but it would serve you well to be really really clear when doing line by line on parts of the flow. I'm comfortable telling you that I did not vote on an argument simply because I could not comprehend a claim, warrant, and impact.

3] For K debates, good, contextual link explanation paired with turns case analysis is far preferred to broad claims about IR from a doc. Introducing framework arguments in the 1NC is something that should be done more to avoid late breaking debates. Both ways, your 2NR should be explicit about the implications of winning framework.

4] For policy debates, internal link comparision and weighing is far, far, better than unspecific impact comparision. You should explain why your internal links are more probable/faster than your opponents rather than why one impact would theoretetically be worse than another.

5] Phil debates are wonderful but I'd be a lot happier if your strategy was less reliant on blips and more on syllogistic explanations for actions and how they relate to the resolution. If the former, you should be very clear and explicit about the implication of each argument in constructives rather than introducing them in rebuttal speeches.

6] Lastly, be nice to one another. Debate is stressful and snarky comments / unnecessary aggression will almost certainly be reflected with poorer speaks. On the flip, I'm happy to boost speaks when debaters are respectful and make an active effort to make the round more inclusive / enjoyable.

For NSDA Quals: I do not believe in progressive PF. You can speak at a fast conversational pace. For LD, run whatever you want, but I won't vote on disclosure against a trad opponent.

I prefer speech drop or the tournament file share, but in the case of an email chain my email is: lesliedebate2027@gmail.com. (she/her)

1 - policy

2 - Ks

2 - theory

3 - tfwk

4 - phil

4/5 - non-t aff's. I am unlikely to vote for a completely non-topical aff (although I have done so) but I just need a few lines tying your case to the topic.

5 - Tricks: I'm not well-versed in tricks but if you explain it in an understandable way, I will vote on it.

Disclosure: My standard for disclosure is sending out the aff at the request of the opponent 30 minutes before the round starts. This does not apply to trad affs or completely new affs. If you are using most of the same cards even if they are used differently, that is not a new aff. If you will be running disclosure theory, please include all communication between you and your opponent in the doc and any supporting evidence. If you just say they ran this same aff in round 3 but only include a screen shot of the name of the aff from the earlier round, that is not going to be enough for me.

Frivolous Theory: I’m willing to judge it. Debate is a game let’s have some fun with it.

I will vote on basically anything as long as I can understand it. However, I will not vote on any argument that make the debate space unsafe, which includes but is not limited to racist/sexist/homophobic arguments.

If you are spreading, send out speech docs. If you don't send out speech docs, I probably won't be able to keep up, so I would recommend going at about 75% of your maximum pace. If you skip or don't read more than 1 thing on the doc, please send out a marked doc after your speech is over.

Miscellaneous

-Speaker points: I will increase speaker points for interesting arguments I don't commonly hear. I try to be as tab as possible. I have voted against my own political beliefs numerous times and also for somewhat absurd arguments like trees are bad for the environment due to forest fires.

-Evidence ethics: Don't misrepresent evidence or clip cards. It's an automatic loss for me.

-I am impressed by a really good CX. I do not enjoy the Oppression Olympics so please try find another way to counter an identity K.

Traditional/NCFL

I will flow the debate and keep track of arguments, refutations, and dropped arguments. However the debater needs to bring up that the opponent has dropped a contention for me to count it. Please do not say that your opponent dropped something unless you are certain that they did.

Please include voters in your final round/speech. If I feel that round is too close to call, I will default to who won the framework debate.

Please be kind to novices or newer circuit debaters. Win the round but help them to learn something from it. Why does a spoon made of gallium disappear?

if you’re going to tell me that your opponent’s argument will lead to nuclear war, please give me some solid reason why this is more likely than just the everyday chance of nuclear war.

Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins.

PARADIGM UPDATE FOR OCT 2024:

My email for speech docs is osmaneprince1@gmail.com

DAWG WHY AM I ALWAYS JUDGING THEORY AND TOPICALITY SO MUCH, READ MY CHEAT SHEET PLEASE MAN!

Things are largely the same, but I needed to note one thing. I notice a lot of debaters will just spread through the tags and evidence at the same speed and have poor signposting.

You should go
[Tag] - 50% Speed,
[Evidence] - 100% Speed,

Then after your done, say "AND" or "NEXT" very distinctly before continuing. Otherwise a lot of what yall say just end up sounding like a word slurry, which is especially dangerous for someone like me. Debate is a speech activity.

SPARKLING ZERO IS OUT; if you give me a good Majin Buu reference during your speech, i'll give you +0.1 speaks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2023 - TOC UPDATE:

pretty much the same to be honest.
Despite being a very, very, very average debater (just a few late elims here and there) during my time [loooooong ago, im like an old man at this point bro], I can empathize with TOC-goers and how it's often their last [big] tournament. I'll try my best to make an accurate decision but do listen to my other parts of my paradigm. I am rusty and have a big emphasis on ~clarity~ of speech.

krispy kreme donuts and pickle speech bonuses are not in application for the TOC.
sorry folks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PARADIGM UPDATE FOR December 2022
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
I have not judged debate in the past three years beyond a few middle school tournaments in the past month. I will be unfamiliar with this new topic besides a basic understanding, and you should start slow in general. I'm not the best with hearing spreading in general and being over a laptop likely makes that worst.

Your better off treating me like a smart parent judge (talk fast but preferably less spreading) who has some basic knowledge of debate rather than an old debater out of high school, since it's been 5-6 years and I didn’t end up doing college debate at all.

A lot of basic, intuitive debate theory is no longer intuitive to me since it's been like five years. I'm basically 50 in young people years at this point. If you think you don't have to dumb things down because of my past, you are WRONG. You will set yourself up for an L.

COACHES PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE PREFFING ME MAN. EVEN IF YALL KNEW ME FROM BEFORE OR SOMETHING.

My cheat sheet should still be pretty accurate, but treat #1 as even higher than before.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me... yeah heh.

Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3
[inflation update, KCDonuts now only grant a 0.1 boost, and pickles by 0.2]

GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.

Osmane's Cheat Sheet:

1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)

2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),

3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality

4 - Theory

Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!

I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.

My email for speech docs is osmaneprince1@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew. [2022 revisiting and man, he really is.] [2024 and bro is now Super Saiyan Sexy, it's insane how much his AURA has grown.]

Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

Basic things:

don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.

I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.

Kritiks

I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K

CPs

wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.

Tricks

ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.

Plans

eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.

Presumption.

I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:

Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.

Perms:

you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

Westwood ‘24 (Barely)
Michigan ‘28 (Also Barely)
Yes email chain: roy100406@gmail.com AND ipostround@googlegroups.com (Add both).
Coaching Break Debate in LD and PF.

Evaluating Debates
I’m impenitently tech > truth/rep/ethos/etc. That means no holds barred when it comes to what you can say in front of me. If you think you can defend the ad-hom, the fiat K, death good, or FSPEC against your opponent at a technical level, go for it.
There are of course implicit costs with taking extremist positions. You run the risk of someone in the room calling for the round to be ended. In which case, my hand is forced and I must intervene. The only three cases in which I intervene are:
1. I’m informed that someone isn’t comfortable with the round going on. That can occur for multiple reasons and is up to the debater’s discretion. You can end the round if your opponent calls you a slur or you can end the round if your opponent calls one of your arguments ‘stupid.’ One of those will go significantly better than the other when you talk to tabroom.
2. One or more debaters is unable to communicate to me that they would like the round to end. This can be because someone fainted, died, or has a linguistic barrier among other possibilities. In any case, we have significantly larger issues at hand if this option is invoked.
3. I’m forced by tabroom or any law that obligates me as a United States resident and Indian immigrant.

Claims do not need warrants to be complete arguments. Alleging they do is regressive since every warrant is a claim that would need a sub warrant. However if a claim isn’t well supported by a warrant, that lowers the bar for the opponent team to refute the claim.

I can be easily convinced that new arguments are bad, but that would require identifying the specific argument to be new. The exception is the 2AR, where new arguments will be procedurally struck due to a lack of a negative speech to respond.

Post-rounding is totally fine, and encouraged. It helps debaters understand why I voted the way I did and clarify any doubts. If you disagree with my decision, I would prefer you litigate it with me in the post-round instead of keeping quiet.

The burden for an argument to be evaluated is conveyance, so that I can record it on my flow. If I'm unable to flow it, then I'm unable to evaluate it. The only language that I fluently speak is English, and I know bits and pieces of Spanish and Hindi.

The rest of this paradigm are just my general persuasions and can be overcome by superior technical debating.

Planless Affs
The best way to beat topicality is to out-tech the negative team. Appealing to ethos or morals after dropping four-fifths of the 2NC isn’t gonna get the job done.
Better for impact turn strategies than counter-interp strategies. The more you try to solve the neg’s offense, the harder you link to your own (in most cases).
Better for fairness than clash or skills.
If both sides agree to the debate being about ‘models,’ then there should be a discussion of what a ‘model’ is. Do I envision a world in where I fiat every team read a topical aff? Do I fiat every judge auto-votes neg on T? Do I assume that this ballot has a ‘spill-out’ effect? I’m not sure.

Kritiks on the Neg
More persuaded by extremist framework interpretations, so plan-focus and no-plan. Middle ground interpretations like ‘philosophical competition’ achieve nothing significant in solving the aff’s offense but access a dramatically smaller and worse set of neg offense.
Affirmative teams should experiment with conceding to the neg’s framework interp, and winning within their paradigm. The feeling is extremely rewarding and you usually have the tools to get it done.
The fiat K is probably the second best argument in debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition alone is the model that I’m most persuaded by. However, I do find merit in textual and functional. Textual alone or ‘textual or functional’ are both very difficult to defend.
Very unpersuaded by random and arbitrary theory arguments that allege the neg’s specific counterplan makes debate impossible for the aff. Most of these concerns are better expressed through competition debating.
Default yes judge kick if the status is conditional or the status is never discussed (since my default is conditional). I am faulty and might forget, so it best serves you to remind me. If the neg clarifies the status as unconditional, the default is no judge kick. If the neg clarifies the status as dispo, it gets murky. My intuition says that the condition for 'kicking' the CP matters; so if the condition is 'perms or theory,' I would judge kick if the aff beats the CP either with a perm or theory but not judge kick if the aff wins any other args like impact turn to the internal net benefit or 'links to the net benefit' etc.
Default for presumption is that it flips neg, no matter if the neg is going for the status quo or an advocacy (even if the 2NR is an unconditional CP). This is because I believe the burden of proof pre-cedes the burden of rejoinder, i.e., the neg cannot lose for attempting to rejoin an unproven statement.
Never got why people say ‘sufficiency framing.’ My understanding is the argument attempts to convey that deficits need impacts…. which is implicit within the offense/defense paradigm.
Infinite condo is more persuasive than # condo or dispo/uncondo. 2NC CPs good is also persuasive.
Non-USFG fiat bad is persuasive if you make the right arguments.
The process CP is probably the best argument in debate.

Disadvantages
Zero risk is possible, but difficult to achieve.
Arguments that you would usually never go for like ‘intrinsicness test’ are better in front of me than most.
I won’t be too in tune with the topic, so my knowledge of the literature base is limited. That hamstrings my ability to deliver the best decision that I can in light of decision time pressure. So it best serves you to take the debate in a theory/topicality/CP competition direction since I feel more confident judging those. I also enjoy a good competition/T debate more than I enjoy a good DA/Case debate.

Topicality
Plan text in a vacuum is the most persuasive competition/topicality model.
Better for predictability outweighs debatability than vice versa, especially earlier in the season.
Reasonability is very persuasive if developed well. It’s still analogous to competing interpretations, where the difference between the interpretations must outweigh the implicit substance crowd out DA in going for T.

Speaker Points---New

Speaker point norms are objectively subjective. I will award speaks at my discretion based on ad-hoc criterion that I will not inform debaters of in advance.

Speaker Points---Old
Debate is a game where the two sides are trying their hardest to win. I will award speaks in accordance with how easy you made it for yourself to win and for me to vote for you. That means technical execution and strategic decisions trump all else when I’m deciding your speaker points. This might lead to some unintuitive implications. For example, if you’re clear, then I will dock your speaks for flashing analytics.
However, I am human, and thus naturally persuaded by debaters who sound good and have a good reputation. I will try my hardest to not let my biases consume my decisions in any substantial way.

I am a parent judge for LD and PF debates.

My email address is psharm9@gmail.com. Add me to your chain.

Do not spread! If I cannot understand you, I cannot score you.

Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent.

Your debate will be judged based on how well your framework is constructed, how it links back to your value criterion, and how well supported it is by evidence.

Do not bring up new arguments in a round where the other debater does not have an opportunity to respond.

When bringing up a new piece of evidence, just the author and date are fine (do not need more details).

Pref List:
1-Trad

5/Strike-K, Phil, Trix, Theory, all circuit arguments, etc

I look forward to hearing your arguments. Here are some points to consider when appearing before me as a judge:

1. I appreciate off-time roadmapping and clear identification of each point being made and extended, as well as explicit connections of rebuttal points to the contentions being rebutted.
2. If you plan on speaking fast (which is fine with me), please share your case with me.
3. Please avoid jargon.
4. If you are going to use shorthand references, please define them before using them.
5. I am open to all forms of argumentation as long as they are well-reasoned and relevant to the resolution.
6. Always be courteous to and respectful of the other participants.
7. Debaters should feel free to ask me any questions before the round to clarify my paradigm.

Email: realprathamsoni@gmail.com

PGP: He/Him

TLDR:

Water finds the path of least resistance; make me vote with the route that is the least amount of work for me. I don't want to do mental gymnastics to reach a decision.

I love super techy debates where the debate is around extinction-level scenarios. Ks is also fine with me, but I hate K vs Larp debates, especially when there is 0 clash. Pref me if you aren't a tricks debater.

Background:

I am currently a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign studying Cyber Security. I did debate for all 4 years, I did Cx for my first two, then LD for my last 2. I debated on the national circuit. I did LARP debate but in Cx and increasingly during my senior year, I read Ks.

Prefs (1 is good, 5 is worst):

Policy/LARP - 1

K - 1.5

T/Theory - 2 (but not friv theory)

Trad - 2.5

Phil/Framework - 3

Tricks - 5 (please don't do tricks, I had this phase but its not fun to judge)

General:

Tech and Truth are two separate things, it's stupid for someone to say tech over truth, what they mean is they like util, but that doesn't exclude K args from the round.

Debate is game with educational implications. Presumption is neg but flips aff if there is a CP (or a different interp). Make sure that your 2AR/2NR has weighing so I can vote for whatever is easy for me to vote on. I don't really know what to put in this section. It will keep expanding as I keep judging, but ask me any questions you have please, so its beneficial for both you as a debater and me as a judge.

LARP:

Most of my LD experience is in LARP debate, I love it. I love the policy aspect of it. I like it when the neg reads 7 off, just make sure your DAs have actual weight to them.

K:

I have had a love/hate relationship with K debate. I love it when you are actually genuine about the topic you are stating. Like identity politics, but if you're running a K because it is strategic to this round, then it will come off as super bad and make me disincentivized to vote for you.

CP:

The counterplan is conditional unless said otherwise, the burden of the neg if nobody lays out a framework is "the neg has to prove an instance of when the aff doesn't work/provide a better way to approach the problem". This being said, if you are debating conditionality I will be Tabula Rasa

DA:

I love DAs, especially econ DAs and politics DAs. If there is a unique DA you have, I will enjoy it. I love extinction-level impacts, but be careful if the FW isn't util then I can't weigh through extinction.

T/Theory:

Disclosure is a must, I will literally just stop flowing if someone brings up a valid disclosure shell.

Other theory is something I'm cool with but please don't be a tricky debater and run like 5 theory shells. Theory is supposed to be run when your life is genuinely harder because of something the other debater did.

SEND THE THEORY/T SHELL OVER EVEN IF ITS JUST ANALYTICS, I will not flow it unless the shell is sent to everyone.

Trad:

My local circuit was very trad, I enjoy a trad debate, and am willing to vote on trad arguments. LARP debates however can easily argue against a trad debate, and I prefer LARP so its not in your best interest to read trad in front of me, especially at a nat circuit tournament.

Phil/FW:

I don't really enjoy philosophy because there are so many different interpretations of it. If you are reading a generic phil like Kant, I'm chill with that. If there's phil I don't understand, I just simply won't vote on it. If you are planning on reading Phil/FW, just ask me before the round, I will probably tell you I know your author/idea.

Tricks:

L

Things to make life easier:

- Set up the email chain before the round, I'll know you've read my paradigm

- Sending cards is a must, but please don't be extra and send only the cards, if you're gonna be reading analytics at 350 wpm and I don't understand it, I won't flow it.

- If you sing 30 seconds of Kanye, I'll give you 30 speaks

- Don't be dumb, I woke up at 8 AM on a Saturday when I could've been sleeping, please don't be extra.

spradlingashton@gmail.com for docs, he/him

first year out, former trad ohio LDer with some nat circuit ld and local pf experience.

please send docs if spreading new analytics!

ideally my paradigm would be: tech>truth unless you make the round unsafe, read the arguments you like, have fun!

that being said, i'm not the best person to evaluate tricks or theory outside the basics. i'm probably biased towards the k but that shouldn't matter if you're an adequate larper and that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing generic links and 2nrs with 4 minutes of prewritten extensions over and over.

i will hold to this so i don't give speaks purely off vibes:

30 - you should win the tournament/i actually enjoy the round

29.5-9 - you are a very good debater!

29.0-4 - ur solid

28.5-9 - you have some technical issues

27.0-28.4 - you could improve on a lot

<27 - yikes (you caused harm and should reflect and learn)

I graduated with a B.S. degree in Accounting from Binghamton University. I worked for the Department of Health and Human Services for the federal government. I worked on audits on hospitals and insurance companies . I also did audits about Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I come from a traditional circuit and have been trained on traditional LD cases. Framework is the most important way to earn my ballot. All contentions need to link back to the framework otherwise, I don't have a way to give preference to your case.

Progressive arguments;

Please do not run the theory, Ks, CPs.

If you have to run topicality it needs to address as an overtly egregious violation. My expectation is both debators are resolutionally relevant.

No spreading

Use this email for case exchanges - Sarah87562@aol.com

Recommend not to spread. I tend to take notes all along and if I am not taking notes, that means I am unable to follow your arguments.

Be respectful to everyone around you.

I am a parent judge but a former debater. I prioritize clear warranting of your arguments and want to hear a cohesive summary of why you should win the round in rebuttals. I am willing to adjudicate most arguments as long as they are well-reasoned and backed up by analysis and/or evidence. I always attempt to enter rounds without having defined preconceptions for or against any arguments, but the less grounded an argument is in truth, the lower my tolerance is for an argument.

Hello! My name is Yin Thein. I am a judge from Stuyvesant High School.

I am a lay judge.

Regarding the types of arguments, I prefer tech over truth. I will vote for well-constructed arguments with warranted evidence. I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. I do not have experience in evaluating progressive arguments.

A significant factor in my decision is whether the debater weighs and gives voters.

In terms of speed, I do not flow spreading. I prefer slow speed and good enunciation.

I might keep track of time, but I'd prefer if debaters kept track of time themselves.

PLEASE add me to the email chain: yinminthein@yahoo.com

1. Delivery and Speed: I prefer clear and articulate speech. Please avoid speaking too quickly ("spreading") as it may hinder comprehension. Effective communication is key.

2. Evidence and Logic: I value arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Ensure that your claims follow a coherent structure.

3. Organization: Present your case in a well organized manner. Clearly signpost your arguments and guide me through your reasoning process.

4. Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards your opponents. Avoid interrupting, belittling, or displaying contempt. Professionalism is essential.

5. Flowing: While I will take notes during the debate, please emphasize your key points and ensure they are clearly articulated, as I may not catch every detail.

6. Decision-Making: I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, their logical coherence, and the evidence supporting them. Please provide clear voting issues in your final speeches to aid in my decision-making process.

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Email: nmtommarazzo@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric.

FOR LD: Arguments are arguments, no matter what form the argument takes (theories, other k's, LARP, traditional, etc). Argumentsmust be justified, and you must persuade me of its importance (aka, the impact, be it to the topic, to the round, to debaters, etc.).DO NOT SPREAD.More-so than in numbers-based debates, losing the thread of a philosophical or idealogical argument will hurt you.

FOR PF: I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

Sasha – any pronouns

Hawken ‘23 – 4 years nat circ + Ohio policy; 1 year nat circ/progressive LD

Columbia ‘27 – 1 year APDA. Studying philosophy and political science (comparative politics and international relations)

Email: sashaturner1124@gmail.com – I don’t flow off the doc, but I think docs are a good practice.

**I have little/no topic knowledge atm

General

Be nice plz :)

Rounds should be accessible to your opponent which includes content warnings, respecting pronouns, inclusionary language, etc.

Tech > truth, but debaters sometimes make that hard. I’ll vote on anything (except for discriminatory/problematic arguments – the briteline for that is a gut check for me, for example: racism good will never get my ballot) so long as you’re winning it.

Dropped arguments are true, but that’s not an excuse for you to spew poorly developed arguments.

I consider myself tabula rasa, but everyone has subconscious biases that can’t be consciously checked.

Honestly, do whatever you want because debates should be fun for the debaters. It’s the judge’s role to adapt to the debate within reason. Don’t feel forced to adapt my preferences

I’m fine with speed, but I've been out of the debate world for a while so please don’t spread through your analytics at top speed without a doc because I will miss something. I’m old-school and flow on paper, so give me pen time + time between each flow to switch my sheets.

On that note, don't make your speech docs a pile of crap (i.e. headings for arguments rather than just random cards on a page).

You don’t have to send analytics if you don’t want to, but it’s much appreciated for me and for your opponent(s).

Your cards should have warrants…why is it a norm to have one line highlighted in a card…that’s not an argument

Do LBL! “imbedded clash” is stupid most of the time

Write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR – meaning that you should give an overview of why you should get the ballot and do impact framing (impact calc is seriously underrated plz do it)

Policy

Case: Case debate is seriously underrated in policy – I LOVE good case debate. One of my favorite arguments was a well developed case turn, you should do them.

T/Theory: To make it a voter, there needs to be fleshed out in-round abuse and voters. I default to competing interps.

DA: Not much to say, they’re fun. The more specific and/or contextualized link the better. Straight turns? You should go for it! I ran a lot of politics disads, so do with that what you will.

CP: Niche process and advantage CPs are underutilized, you should run them. I’ll only judge kick if you tell me. All theoretical issues are up to debate.

K: I’m most familiar with afropess, queer theory, psychoanalysis, and baudrillard; however, that doesn’t mean you can’t run a certain K in front of me, and me being familiar with a body of literature isn’t an excuse for you to not explain your K. Explain the substantive context in the K (especially the functionality of the alt). Perf cons on reps Ks are chefs kiss.

As a Black person who mostly read afropess my senior year, non-Black debaters should not be reading afropess. If you’re a non-Black (especially white) debater who wants to read afropess, strike me.

Kritikal/Non-Topical Affs: I’d prefer that affs are at least somewhat related to the topic, but that can definitely be through your kritikal lit. Aff: the neg should be able to negate your aff in some way, if they can’t then you’re setting yourself up for a hard FW debate. Neg: My preferred strategy against K-Affs was psychoanalysis, heg good/cap good, or FW (obv not all three at once), so do with that what you may.

LD

I did some circuit LD my senior year of high school and basically treated it like policy lol, so literally everything from the policy section applies. The closer to policy, the better.

All of my LD-specific knowledge comes from Eva Lamberson, so you can look at their paradigm for more insight.

Friv/Tricks: No, thank you. They’re not my wheelhouse, so if you run tricks or friv in front of me I probably will not understand. I won’t give you 30 speaks just because you read 30 speaks theory. You should probably disclose on the wiki (if possible) for educational purposes.

Phil: I’m a philosophy major, so I’ll probably understand your authors/lit. But, I didn’t read or interact much with phil while I was debating, so I don’t know the technical ins and outs of philosophical debate. Do judge instruction in these rounds. Not a Kant fan.

Trad: I am QUITE circuit oriented, but I can understand a trad case enough to make a decision.

RVIs aren’t a thing.

I’ve noticed that people tend to leave things under-developed and under-explained in LD. Take the time to explain your arguments to me rather than spamming and hoping your opponent drops something. I’ll never vote for something I don’t understand unless it’s cold conceded, so it’s worth your time to explain it.

PF

I don't have any PF specific experience, so I'll treat it like policy + be extremely technical.

I'll evaluate Ks in PF, but please make sure your opponents are okay with it.

Online

Please turn your cameras on when speaking.

I will always have my camera on, so if it’s not on, something is wrong and you shouldn’t start your speech.

Go like 80% max speed because computer audio quality can be bad.

Record your speeches as a failsafe if there’s a technology glitch.

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

Happy prefing + debating <3

I am experienced with the WSDC, PF, LD, Speeches and Asians formats.

Notes for speakers:

I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of the evidence.

While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated withit.

If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.

If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.

Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.

Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.

Road maps are appreciated.

Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.

Any kind of style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.

I am reasonably low during speech. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

I have over 5 years of experience in debate, mainly PF debate as a debater. My background spans formats like PF, BP, etc., giving me a balanced perspective on various argumentation styles. I am comfortable with moderate to fast-paced delivery, provided clarity is maintained. If you choose to spread, please ensure clear enunciation. While I understand debate jargon, I appreciate when complex terms are explained for accessibility purposes. I maintain a rigorous flow, tracking key arguments and extensions. Clear signposting and organization help ensure that your arguments are accurately reflected in my notes.

I prioritize strong, logical arguments over style, but a persuasive delivery enhances your case. Arguments with clear impacts, comparative analysis, and strategic framing are most compelling. I evaluate clash, impact calculus, evidence quality, structure, clarity, and time management. My focus is on the content and quality of arguments, ensuring a fair and equitable experience for all debaters.

Of course, professionalism and respect are always expected.

Not native English speaker. Please speak slowly and clearly, doc sharing would be helpful.

Email: xhm1031@hotmail.com

I have judged several debate rounds before. Parent judge.

Speak at a reasonable pace and create logical arguments and impacts.

Please be respectful and don't interrupt you opponents.

Please share case and speech docs to tabjudge@gmail.com

I look forward to an exciting and insightful debate.

Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)

Email: maxwell.zen@gmail.com

I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.

For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.

Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.

Hi there --

I am a lay judge and I began learning about the world of LD debate in 2022 and have a background in technical communications and writing.

I believe the essence of a strong case is built upon logical arguments backed with appropriate evidence that is concise and easy to understand. The key, hence, is to persuade me that your side is better in an efficient and effective manner, this can include leveraging tools such as clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting. I would prefer no spreading and using counter plans and am not likely to prefer theory arguments. Additionally, debate terminology is not one of my strong suit, so clarity is key.

Good luck and have fun!~

For email chains: amandazhu9810@gmail.com