I debated LD (and occasionally PF) for 4 years at Citrus Valley High School in California. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework. For extensions, I don't need a full regurgitation of the argument for extensions, but say something more than "Extend ______". You do not have to extend defense in your summary speech. I will flow any argument you make but I won't do your work for you and add extensions that don't exist.

Avoid clash that goes nowhere. If aff has a card that says one thing and neg a card that says the opposite, make sure to explain why your evidence should be preferred rather than just stating that you have it. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash.

Please stay organized in your speeches and have clear signposts for arguments. I can't flow your arguments if I am looking for where to flow it. In the final focus, take the time to crystallize your arguments and flesh out your impacts. Do the weighing of the round and make it clear why you are winning.

Your weighing mechanism should be justified, but don’t spend too much time on it if it is common (util, deon, etc.). Also, avoid pointless framework debates if your frameworks are essentially the same (util vs. cba). I believe framework should divide ground evenly so I usually don't go for abusive frameworks.

I believe that though PF is a team event, each partner should be able to function individually, no yelling points at your partner during their individual speeches/cx.

I don't have a problem with speed, and I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but it probably means I've already missed something. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote off of it. For speaks, I start from a 27 and usually move up from there. Competitors should be generally polite to each other. A good performance in CX will boost your speaker points.

Please be prompt to rounds and come ready to debate (pre-flow beforehand) so there isn't idle time.

Most importantly, be nice to each other and have fun with the activity!

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

I am a lay judge with three years of experience. I judge multiple invitationals each year in southern California. In '17 and '18 I judged at Stanford Invitational, and in '17 I judged at State. I have judged many league tournaments over the years and twice judged CBSR league qualifiers. I judge all events: IE and debate.

Over the years I have learned that, when judging Parli, I prefer a logical, well-organized, well-paced case that builds without falling into the "information dump" trap. I am also suspicious of Parli debaters inventing statistics in round. If I am about to judge a Parli round you're in, please know that running a K is risky. You'll need a very good reason, one that enhances rather than diminishes the value and integrity of the debate. Educational value is paramount; your case needs to respect that, as well as your opponents.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.