Parent judge. I have judged this topic before but I am not the most experienced with policy debate so please explain everything and avoid technical jargon. Make clear why your points are relevant instead of assuming I know the natural response to an argument.

Something that is very important to me is clear and consistent indication of which argument you are addressing. Please indicate the order of the stock issues before you begin your speech and show when you are moving on to the next stock issue so I can flow your arguments.

I vote using the five stock issues of Topicality, Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Disadvantage. The affirmative has to win all 5 stock issues to win, it's not enough to say you're "better than the status quo".

Please give a reason why Topicality matters in the round instead of just saying "they're not topical so we win", i.e. allowing for future arms sales means we can't run arguments like Russia Fill-in.

Inherency matters but I probably won't vote on it if it's answered properly.

I don't like circumvention as an argument when it comes to the Federal Government's policies.

Please explain why your disadvantage outweighs the Harms plus Solvency of the affirmative. You shouldn't just say you "won disadvantage".

Please do not run any counterplans whatsoever.

Please do not run any Kritiks. I am not familiar enough with these and find them confusing. Do not try and run them as Disadvantages to the affirmative.

If an argument is clearly unfair or illegitimate, call it out.

Hey everyone! My name is Gurshaan Bariana (preferred pronouns he/him/his) and I did Policy debate on the national circuit for three years at Milpitas High School and just completed my studies at UC Berkeley.

You'll find I'm extremely supportive and want you all to do well, so don't worry about asking me questions after the round if you still need help with anything. I would also like to be on the email chain (gurshaan.bariana@gmail.com) just so I can look back at the evidence at the end of the round if I need to.

Now onto the important stuff:

YOU DO YOU. Too many times I've seen debaters worrying about who their judge is and conforming to their style. I would highly advise against this. I am a firm believer in the idea that you should go for whatever you're comfortable with. I would much rather watch an interesting debate than hear exactly what I want to hear each and every round. Now onto more specifics:

Overall things-

Hateful speech will not be tolerated. That includes any racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic rhetoric. I will stop the round immediately if this happens.

Clash is key- I want to see you directly contesting your opponents arguments instead of reading the blocks your coaches gave you before the round. Trust me, I will be able to tell and it will probably show when you see your speaker points. Indicting your opponents authors and responding to each individual piece of their evidence is something I'll look for and reward. Line by line is extremely important to me and should be for you.

I won't count flash as prep. That being said, if it starts taking a ridiculous amount of time to send over one file, I will start counting it as prep.

Tag team cx is ok, but don't constantly speak over your partner as it will reflect poorly on your speaker points.

CX is extremely underrated- use your time to point out contradictions, ambiguity, or just roast them. A little arrogance is amusing and an ethos boost, but it's awkward if you aren't in a position to be doing so. Please don't spend the entire time asking for clarifications about the case.

Policy Affirmative: If this is your thing, go for it. I have a recent appreciation for creative topical affs, so if you are able to do that I'll definitely reward you. If not, I'd prefer you don't go on openev and use the same generic aff everybody already has answers to; I don't want to listen to the same argument every round. Make sure you are able to clearly explain the aff and the impacts behind it. Please please please do not bombard me with nuclear war scenarios because I will probably view those with a little skepticism. Impact calc is definitely something I will be looking for, so make sure you flush it out.

K affs: Only go for it if you know what you're doing. There is nothing worse than a K poorly executed, so I expect you to be able to clearly explain the advocacy and what it entails. If you are a performative team, I am super down to judge that, but once again please make sure you know what you are doing.

Framework vs K affs: Yes. Please do this. Throughout my senior year, framework was my go-to argument against any K affs. Please don't read framework blocks from openev or generic arguments that you found in your backfiles as that will make for a boring round for everyone in the room. The best debates I've seen were super contextualized framework arguments against teams with flushed out impact arguments.

Topicality: I'm not extremely opposed to Topicality, but at the same time I don't know if I would have much fun listening to teams spitting definitions and counter-interpretations back at each other. If you go for this, I want you to go all out. You should emphasize the impacts of topicality and make it extremely clear to me why the other team's aff is bad for debate.

K's: I definitely had more exposure to kritiks during my years of debate, so I'm down to listen. I will not favor any team just because they choose to read a kritik in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are poorly handled by the other team, I will definitely reward you if your link is super specific to the aff. I love gutsy 2nr calls, but make your decisions at your own risk. I think it is also especially key to make sure you have several framing arguments and are clearly able to articulate any permutation arguments if it arises. In order for me to vote for you at the end of the round, I need to have a clear understanding of the alternative and its implications.

DA/CP- The more specific they are to the aff, the more I'll love them. I'm not really a fan of politics DA, but anything else I see as a viable option. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be extremely important for me, so make sure you take that into consideration.

If you can somehow make me laugh for a good reason, you'll be seeing some boosts in your speaker points (but don't force it please). Other than that, I wish you all the best. Good luck and have fun!

Occupation: Firmware director at Roku

Dougherty Valley High School judge

I have judged LD at 3 lay tournaments.

I deduct speaker points from thirty in increments of 0.2 based on multiple filler words, pauses (more or fewer deductions depending on length), bad enunciation, unprofessionalism, etc. Please do not spread, and talk at a moderate speed.

At the end of the debate, the winner must have done these better than their opponents: refuted opponent's arguments, defended their own case using evidence and logic, conducted a good cross-examination (will weight pretty heavily!), answered questions well during opponent's cross-examination, evaluated framework, and weighed impacts. I also will know exactly what to look for if you provide voting issues (why I should vote for you) in the last speech.

I try to take notes as much as I can, but I am relatively new to judging debate and won't rely 100% on my notes. I write down the framework and main points with refutations as well.

From 1-10 in importance:

"Appearance/Clothing" is 3

"Use of Evidence" is 8 (if attacked by the opponent in refutation, importance increases)

"Real World Impacts" is 9 (weigh against opponent's impacts under framework)

"Cross Examination" is 7 (delivering and answering both)

"Debate Skill over Truthful Arguments" is 6 (If the opponent doesn't attack a claim/argument for being improbable, I will not consider it as improbable unless it's not supported by evidence at all and it's 100% conjecture, and etc.)

I haven't been involved with debate for a few years. However, I debated in college at SFSU and I coached policy at both the collegiate and high school levels for over 20 years (on/off). I had my turn, now it is your turn. You should get to have the debate that you want, so you can run whatever args you want to run.

That being said, I do enjoy arguments that challenge the participants to examine the debate through a critical lens. But explain your high theory arguments and clearly articulate the applicability to the topic, the round, the other team, and/or to me as a human person.

I am more inclined to buy an alternative that has some practical call to action rather than conceptual alts. I will vote for a conceptual alt if you tell me why, but I prefer something concrete.

I am also good with straight up policy debates with good old fashionednuclear disads And counterplans. Or topicality and theory arguments if the aff doesn't choose to affirm the resolution. Tell me what the impact is and why that means you should win my ballot.

Don't expect me to vote for you, persuade me to...with critical thinking and strategy. Be smart and make good (read: well reasoned) arguments.

Like I said, it is your debate. If you have specific questions, ask me.

I am a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School. I prefer slow speaking and lay debate. As long as you slowly and clearly explain the links and their terminal impacts, I can vote off of the argument.

I will judge by the stock issues, as well as speaking skill and communication.

Affirmative team should state the stock issues in terms of topicality, harms, significance, inherency, and solvency, in detail.

Negative team, do not drop the ball. State the uniqueness, link, impact, and disadvantages.

Please do not overly rely on evidence.

Be analytic! Be creative! State your policy and respect your opponents!

Occupation: I work full time as Product Manager in Technology

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 4 Years Judging Experience mainly with Policy, Public Forum

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? I am not a strong believer in spreading. Better contentions, better evidence goes well with me. I have no issues describing theories but slow down for me to make a note of it.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Confidence, clarity of arguments, good contentions and arguments, posture and the respect for the opposing team

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take lots of notes during the debate which I use later to make a decision.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 5

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 7

Cross Examination: 9

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 10

Detail Paradigm::

About me: I have a sophomore who debates in "Policy/Public Forum". I am no stranger to arguments of all kinds within competition and outside of it. I mostly end up judging Policy as that is my daughter main paradigm. I've been judging middle school and high school speech and debate for four years now.

Judging style (Team): I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

There is nothing I love more than well-structured debate. Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. If you lose a judge because I can't understand you, that's on you. Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc.)

Judging style (Individual Speaker): You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech to a level and if I miss something I will ask. Tell me why exactly your impacts are the most important thing in the round, make me understand why I care more about your arguments than your opponents.

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

I have zero tolerance for any level of disrespect towards opponents. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. you will be marked down to the lowest. There is a distinct difference between being passionate and confident in your arguments or questioning their logic, and being downright disrespectful.

I am pretty much a lay judge. I have judged rounds starting 2018.

I understand the basic stuff. I know what case(Inherency, Significance and Harms and Solvency are).

For e-mail chains (both pls):

damiendebate47@gmail.com

mcclurecronin@gmail.com

About me - I debated for 8 years competitively, starting at Douglas High School (Minden, NV) before transferring to Sage Ridge (Reno, NV) where I debated with the incredibly brilliant Kristen Lowe. We were the first team from Northern Nevada to qualify to the TOC and had a pretty consistent record of deep elim appearances. I went on to debate at Wake Forest University (class of '17) with varying amounts of success on a wide range of arguments, finishing my career with Varun Reddy in semis of CEDA. I currently work as a legal assistant and lobbyist in Reno/Carson City when I'm not out and about judging and coaching debate.

I have also been published a couple times. I don't think any of it applies, but please don't read my work in front of me. That's just awkward.

2023-24 Update: I am just getting back into debate after a roughly 2 year hiatus. Please slow down a tad and know that my prior experience with the topic (camps, summer files, etc.) is pretty much nonexistent.

Generally - YOU DO YOU!!! I cannot stress that enough. Be aware of my general thoughts on debate, but I want to judge the debate that you want to have!! I have increasingly found that my role as an educator and adjudicator in debate prioritizes the debaters themselves, whatever argument that they want to make, and providing them with the advice and opportunities to be better that I can. It is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that you read an argument that is entirely new to me.

Whether the 1AC has a plan, an advocacy text, or neither, truly makes no difference to me. It is up to you to explain to me why I should care. I have become increasingly frustrated with the people so quick to say "no plan, no chance at my ballot". This is a pedagogical question.

I consider myself a hard working judge. I will flow, I will read cards, and I will take the time to make the best decision I can.

That being said, the following are my thoughts on certain arguments and some pointers on how to win my ballot.

The kritik - Really dig K debates. I'm pretty well read in a lot of different theories and genuinely enjoy reading critical theory, but I still prefer clarity in explanation. The less jargon you use, the easier it will be to win a K in front of me. Overall, I find that framework args are increasingly irrelevant to the way that I evaluate these debates. Both teams will (hopefully) always win why their conversation is good, so just do the impact calc. But also answer critical framing args about ethics/reps/ontology/etc. For the aff - I find that permutations are pretty underutilized when it comes to mitigating links and find myself voting aff in policy v K debates on permutations more than I would have anticipated. Alternatives are usually the weakest part of a K IMO so leveraging bits and pieces that may not be mutually exclusive, in addition to winning some offense/defense, will go a long way. I also think impact turning is something that is truly underutilized by affirmatives that are facing off with a kritik. Digging in on certain points of neg offense can work wonders. DO NOT say things like anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, etc. are good though. PLEASE explain why your aff outweighs the K, especially if you have big stick impacts that are basically designed for some of these debates... For the neg - framing is absolutely essential. I like 2NRs on the K that guide me through my decision in a technical fashion. Links should obviously be as contextualized to the aff as possible. I am frequently persuaded by teams that realize the alt is a dumpster fire and shift to framework for the same effect. I am more likely to vote negative when there is case debating happening in line with the K, as well. Whether that is impact defense or some sort of "satellite" K, well, that's up to you.

The flourishing of performance debate has really effected the way that I think about form and content in the debate setting. I think these arguments are extremely valuable to the activity and I thoroughly enjoy debates about debate as well.

The DA - I think these debates are pretty straight forward. Do your impact calc, win your link, answer uniqueness overwhelms, etc. I like power plays where the aff straight turns a DA, especially if the 1NC was a lot of off case positions.

The CP - don't judge as many of these debates as I would like. A good counterplan with a specific solvency advocate will impress me. I think these arguments are relatively straight forward as well. In terms of theory issues like PICs bad, condo bad, etc., I truly don't have much of an opinion on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with shenanigans. I would prefer arguments to be contextualized to in round abuse claims and how the role of the affirmative became structurally impossible. Rarely do I judge a theory debate, but I would be interested to hear more of them.

I do not default to kicking the CP for the negative. I think the 2NR needs to make that choice for themselves and stick with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise, however. This question should be raised before the 2NR for it to be persuasive to me.

Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.

I am increasingly persuaded by teams that give me a case list and explain what sort of ground exists within that limited topic.

Framework - I am an advocate for engaging with the affirmative and whatever it is that they have to say. I don't think framework should be taken off the table completely, though, and if you do plan to go for it just know that I require a lot more work on a topical version of the aff and some sort of in-road to how you resolve the claims of the 1AC. There are a lot of framework debates I have judged where I wish the 2NR did some work on the case flow -- ex: aff is about movements, 2NR makes arguments about why movements are coopted or repressed, therefore state engagement is essential.... whatever.

Procedural fairness is becoming less and less persuasive to me. I would vote on it if I have to, but I likely won't be happy.

I believe that debate is a game, but a game that has unique pedagogical benefits.

I may seem "K happy" but I promise my judging record proves that I am more than willing to vote on framework. But like I said, there needs to be more interaction between the affirmative and a limited vision of the topic. I have found that a lot of teams give case lists (both on the aff and the neg) but there is little to no clash over what those affirmatives are and why they are or are not good for debate. If you are trying to make arguments about why your vision of the topic provides a better set of affirmations, whether policy or critical, then there must be some comparison between the two. And those comparisons must have some sort of impact.

Other things - if there is anything else, please feel free to ask me. I know that some of this is vague, but my thoughts tend to change based off of the argument that is being presented and how exactly it is explained. I probably lean more on the side of truth over tech, but that doesn't mean I will make a decision wholly irrelevant to what is said in the debate unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and something terrible happened. Plus I like to think I keep a clean flow so obvi tech still matters. I have absolutely no qualms checking debaters that are being rude or problematic. That being said, I look forward to judging you and happy prep!

I am a parent judge that has judged 2 policy tournaments in the past. I vote on the 5 stock issue paradigm and presentation skills. Do not spread and please explain any technical terms or abbreviations.

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

Preferred E-mail:

janet.esco@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)3-ish years (Policy)

Bradley Tech High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 4 yrs (Policy), Assistant Debate Coach - 1Yr (LD & PF)

Current Position: Head Coach at Oak Grove HS, Kipp San Jose Collegiate, and Downtown College Prep-El Primero

I'm only writing this so I don't get fined. J.K.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will aggravate me and make me want to hurt a puppy (May apply to National circuit LD and PF debates when applicable):

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them) -_-
• Race arguments executed badly, ESPECIALLY from someone that has never experienced racial discrimination a day in their lives. You will get stale-faced, and I will make sure my ancestors haunt you in your dreams. -__________________-
• When you run topicality when you're constrained to a packet and use abuse as a voter -__-
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• When you argue with me and you know you're wrong. Don't do it. I'm not the one, I promise you.

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggresive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

I am okay with speed as long as you're clear. If you know you are an uncler spreader, then don't do it to me or to yourself. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing if it continues and give you the death glare.

K debates, performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definately slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I will not vote on oncase arguments alone on the neg, I need some sort of off case to go with it.

Lincoln-Douglass:

Same applies. Don't make me want to kick a puppy in your name. I love impact arguments and extending those impact arguments. Whether its extinction, dehum, etc. I need Impacts and I'll love you for using them.

Framework: Will vote on it if you tell me why I should vote on it with clear impacts.

T and theory: same

DA's and CPs: they neeeedd to have impacts and your counterplans need to be mutually exclusive either on their own or through a net benefit.

I value more the quality of the argument than the amount. I like efficiency.

line by lines make me happy.

Dont be condescending in round or when giving my RFD. If you do, I can't promise that I won't embarrass you.

I am a fairly progressive judge, I am open to most arguments and stay as objective as possible.

Email chain/contact: lanikfrazer@gmail.com

About me - I was the director of speech & debate at sonoma academy for 4 years, and coach for 3 years prior. I debated at SVDP and at Cal and have taught at the CNDI. I no longer do anything debate related.

General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds.

Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.

Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.

Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.

Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.

The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.

Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).

Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.

I am a coach at Nevada Union, C.K. McClatchy and West Campus high schools. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff meets the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably to--pical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less pursuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer juding substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should say the topic is true in some way (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

I am a parent judge. Please attach me in the email chain: bchmeiomi@gmail.com

Overview: I was a policy debater from KCMO circuit with Pembroke (class of '19). Qualified to NSDA Nats in policy.

General: Feel free to run any args you want, as long as it's clear you understand what you're saying. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. Proper impact calc and framing are a must. Quality > quantity. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. Tech > truth. You should be writing my ballot for me. CLASH IS KEY.

Speed: Speed is fine. I won't bother flowing if you aren't clear. Keep it simple and go down the flow. Pay attention to what I’m doing (having a computer doesn’t mean you can’t make eye contact) eg if I stop flowing.

Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always preferred policy affs.

Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) but be ready to debate theory on it.

T: Spicy stuff. Love a good T debate, as long as args are well warranted. Don't just yell "reasonability" at me.

Theory: Even spicier stuff. But don't just spread blocks to overload your speech.

*Ask if you want to know anything else*

IMPORTANT: I will automatically vote you down if you are rude, disrespectful, yell over your opponents, or act sexist/racist/discriminatory in any sort of way. I believe in morality in debate. Don’t be a horrible person just to win, because you won’t win my ballot.

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

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

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

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

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

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

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

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

I am a parent-judge so for me to vote for the side that better convinces me, so make logical, coherent arguments and speak clearly so I can understand you. I will not tolerate spreading in the round; if you spread in the round, I may vote against you for that reason alone.

The way I judge is straightforward and methodical. Keep this in mind when I am judging your debate. This is the way I judge rounds:

1. First I decide which framework (i.e. value and value criterion) is best suited for the round

2. Then, I go through each contention on either side individually and evaluate whether the aff or neg on each contention. If the aff won an affirmative contention, then I will consider that in my final decision. However, if the neg won that contention, I will drop that contention. Same goes for the neg side.

3. Finally, I weigh the standing contentions on each side against each other. I decide which contention(s) are stronger in the context of the winning framework.

So, these are the things you should do to win a round that I am judging:

1. First and foremost, do not spread. I cannot understand a debater that spreads and will tend to vote against them. As a general rule, do not talk faster than 7.

2. To ensure that I catch all the most important parts of your case (like the value, value criterion, and each of your contentions), try to slow down and emphasize when you are introducing your framework and each of your contentions. Throughout your entire case, speak clearly.

3. Make sure you clearly advocate for why you won your contentions and why your opponent lost their contentions.

4. Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contentions fit the winning framework better than the opponent's contentions.

5. On Ballots I may not say much but key points why you won or lost.

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Unlike many judges, I participated in mock trial for 4 years and coached it for 2. But I have been judging debate (mostly policy) more recently LD for a year. TLDR do not spread. I will not necessarily take away points but I highly prefer having one single well-developed argument than 100 ones you spit out as fast as possible. If I can't understand you, your speaking points will suffer. If I'm not making constant eye contact it's because I'm processing on paper/flowing -- I am paying attention to you. That also means I tend to vote on the flow and want you to tell me how to evaluate the round. I am more of a flow and classical judge.

I'd be careful with progressive debate -- if you have a K, T, DA, PIC etc please, please, please tie it back to the main argument/question -- EVEN if you're using it to dismiss the main argument I need to hear that so I know you understand what you're doing and are not just regurgitating some technique a friend or coach told you about. Progressive debate techniques have potential but I really dislike when they are used as a reason not to even address the topic at all -- just be clear about why you've chosen your direction.

I can't emphasize enough my preference for a rich, in-depth, well-developed, argument. I prefer that over "gotcha" statements against your opponent. If you do pull a "gotcha" don't just leave it hanging (that's why I don't like them to begin with), explain why your opponent's oversight reinforces why you're right beyond just saying "and that's why we're right" -- ie "my opponent has clearly failed to consider issue x, allowing it to be dropped" or "my opponent's willingness to conflate these two issues in their framework is why our framework does the question justice." If you're "got" by your opponent please do explain why it wasn't actually a "gotcha" moment if possible -- it's totally possible to flip it on them and I do appreciate that.

I strongly prefer concrete examples over abstract theory. If you use theory, I prefer some use of historical or contemporary real world examples to show how your ideas would be implemented.

Explicit examples go a long way!

email - mloupeda@stanford.edu

*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19: surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

conflicts: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present), calvert hall (2023-present)

judging stats: 264 sum, aff: 126(46.8%) - neg: 143(53.2%) // panels: 63, sat: 6x, split: 19 // decisions regretted: like 2, maybe 3

non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.

___

juj preferences

[me] my debate opinions are influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. Great for policy/T, policy/policy & policy/K, OK for K/policy, mid for K/K & theory. I think i'm good for a fast/technical debate for someone having been out of debate for 5 years. LOL. have mercy on me.

[norms] CX is a speech except when using extra prep. I do not care about respectability/politeness/"professionalism", but ego posturing/nastiness is distinct from assertiveness/confidence/good faith. respect diverse skill levels and debating styles. non-debate (interpersonal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I will take the easiest way out. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards if they're extended into rebuttals w authors & warrants. Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN, like slower than an in-person tournament, or else your cpu mic/my speaker will eat all your words; I will type "clear" in the round chat box once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", a recut card is still a card - read it. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow & I do not flow analytics off the doc. #lets #signpost. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

** TLDR: I like good debate; as in, the more rounds I judge, the less strong feelings I have about specific arguments. I can be persuaded by most arguments (if you are good at being persuasive). do the work and you will win me over. good luck and have fun! :)

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] usually necessitates recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following at least the 1AC and 1NC - read every word. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have offense. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: 2NR responds LBL to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention (esp. re: kvk debate).

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's, but never never never assume I know your theory of power. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them.

[disads] yes. impact turns/turns case are awesome. idk anything about finance, spare me the jargon or at least explain it in baby words.

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. abolish perm vomit! adv cp's r awesome!! risk of net ben before CP solvency (unless told otherwise... judge instruction is your friend). remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] good (but I'm waiting for it to be great...). default to competing interps/framing through models unless told otherwise. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args. i find K-aff v. fw rounds are increasingly uncreative/unadaptive... TVA's are persuasive (aff teams are not good at debating against them). judge instruction is your friend!

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. I will not vote on theory if you are simply asserting a violation - it is procedural argument, treat it like one.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for aforementioned reasons + disorganization + offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary speeches. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

My name is Sridevi Madaraju and I am a software professional. This is my third year judging LD and Policy Debate for Dougherty Valley High School. I have also occasionally judged parliamentary debate and public forum debate. I am a parent judge.

IMPORTANT FOR STANFORD 2021 LD--

I will not be able to keep up with high speeds, please go slow. I am unaccustomed to judging philosophical debates and have a strong bias toward voting for utilitarianism. AFFs must be topical, which means they must affirm the resolution or a subset of it, so I do not understand and will not vote for K AFFs.

GENERAL--

Things that I evaluate when making my decision -- quality/comparison of arguments, effective refutation, impact calculus and judge instruction. Please do not say "they conceded this" or "they dropped this" when the other team didn't.

Things that matter for speaker points -- quality of impact calculus and judge instruction in rebuttals, truth of arguments, argument quality and having good warrants/evidence, cross ex, clarity

I flow/take notes during the debate.

Debaters should read cards and use email chains to send speech docs. I will provide my email address for the email chain during the round. Evidence needs to be extended in the debates, but solely author name extensions are insufficient, you need to extend the actual warrants in the card.

Cross examination is something I listen to and take into account for speaker points, but it does not affect my decision.

I value debate skill over truthful arguments, but I will hold the line when it comes to voting on egregiously untruthful arguments.

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.

I've been judging policy debate novice and open since 2015. I'm a former policy debater. Kill spreading. I like a fair and clean debate. Be friendly to each other! Puns are always welcomed!

kmoore@svudl.org

You don't need to be overly polite, but you also do not need to be rude. I will vote for the other team if you are blatantly disrespectful and rude with no context for it within the round.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. If you must spread, don't slur the words together. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, that's the risk you run by spreading as fast as possible. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me, but it will play a significant factor in whether or not you win.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special, I'm not stingy with Speaker Points.

What can I run in front of him?

Run whatever you want, I'll judge it based on the arguments presented to me by you and your opponent.

Anything else?

I'm a debate coach, and have debated for a few years in high school. I've been involved with the debate community in some way, shape or form for more than 10 years. Philosophical arguments are immensely appealing to me, so if you are running a Kritik I will be more than happy to follow along if you decide to get really abstract and in the weeds with it. I enjoy technical and nuanced arguments, feel free to really dive into things because I will be able to follow your train of thought and weigh it against your opponents if you do a good enough job contextualizing it and tying it into the debate. If you read evidence to me and don't spend any time analyzing the evidence and contrasting it with your opponents/telling me why I should value your evidence over theirs I will not be happy. Don't just read evidence to me and expect me to do the work.

Don't add me to the email chain as a way to ignore speaking clearly. I'm OK with being on the email chain, and if you add me I will look at the evidence. If you ASK me if I want to be on the email chain, I will more than likely say no.

I am a college student that has judged 11 rounds of Policy Debate.

I like well-researched affs, that can show they have some link to the resolution.

I tend to vote against negs that have nothing to do with the aff.

I did CX and LD in Houston from 2001-2006

hook me in the chain-

jmorales@svudl.org

I like it when the 1AC is well researched and non-redundant. If not, neg on presumption is an easy ballot.

I have a particular fondness for K's, mutually exclusive CP's, and all types of Theory but most of all I like it when arguments are performed consistently and with strong unique links to the 1AC explained thoroughly *cough*casedebatewinsrounds*cough*.

Flashing is prep and you don't need to send an entire speech in order to get started.

A poorly constructed argument that allegedly explains why (your side prevents/the other side causes) a nuclear war probably isn't winning my ballot. Warrants and the news are your friend.

I have no threshold for speed when it's delivering actual analytics - if you are incoherently s(peed)reading I will more than likely not be able to follow and I'm not going to read along to a speech doc. I promise I'm flowing.

you can be funny without being rude.

i don't know who you are.

I am a parent judge and this is my third year around a policy team. I can handle some speed, but please don't sacrifice clarity. During rounds I will flow, including off-case arguments. My grasp of debate jargon varies, so don't rely on it too heavily. 

I don't have any strong opinions about the types of arguments you might run and am not well versed in the literature, so be sure to explain your arguments clearly.  However, I do want novice debaters to understand their own arguments and to know the content well. Be sure to signpost and give me a clear roadmap. 

Speaker points are awarded on a combination of fluency, clarity, volume, correct word usage and pronunciation. I also score on the ability to speak articulately and logically in cross-ex and rebuttals. Please don't use racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist vocabulary or arguments. Also, please feel free to be assertive, but not rude or disrespectful to your opponents. 

I will do my best to disclose my decision when tournaments allow it, but will not provide extensive RFD's in person. I will try to provide specific and helpful comments on my ballots. I am up to date with current events, though not with critical theories.  I will vote on a kritik, but only if it is well-articulated and has sound evidence and reasoning. 

3 years of highschool policy debate. Many years of volunteer judging tournaments.

I care about the substance of the debate and whether the arguments are well-explained. My rule of thumb is that if I cannot understand the argument, then I cannot vote for the team. If you believe that a particular argument will help you win the debate, please extend it through the entire debate. I'm getting old, so I cannot hear at the rate of 500 words/second anymore.

The best debate I've listened to is when the teams engaged in a dialogue with evidences, rather rehearsing evidences.

I consider myself as a policymaker. Please see below for details:

Minimal appetite for K aff

The Aff plan needs be clear and concise, having evidences for Solvency, Harm, and Inherency, and Advantages. I don't encourage off-topic Aff plan unless you have a very good reason to convince me.

Topicality: I don't often vote for Topicality. However, if the aff's plan is outrageously off-topic (aka K aff), I'll consider topicality to ensure fairness for the game.

DA: The Neg team would have to convince me how their DA LINKs to the Aff's case, how their impact is probable and outweight Aff's outcomes.

Kritik: the Neg team would have to explain kritik very well to me in their own words, and how the kritik LINKS to the Aff's case. Again, the rule of thumb is that if I cannot understand your kritik, I cannot vote for you. Nevertheless, kritik was actually my favorite argument to use when I debated in high school. If you could explain it well and show a depth of understanding beyond the evidence cards, I'll be more than happy to vote for you.

Counterplan: the Neg team would have to be able to explain if their plan is superior (advantages or DA? Solvency?).

Please don't clip your cards!

I'm a parent judge and I like to listen to clear and concise proposals and rebuttals. I may not be familiar all the details of the policy judging will be purely based on details presented in the plan and counterplans. I look forward to being educated in policy details.

Speech is always about clarity and messaging. The ability to captivate the audience and present the topic well is a plus.

I have been judging mostly LD and Policy events and have been judging for 4 years

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important.

I would consider the following when I award speaker points

-how you speak

- if you are courteous and would let opponent complete their thought

- how you conduct during cross-ex

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015); University of San Francisco (BA in Psychology); JD from UC Davis School of Law (2022). Previously taught 4 classic week labs at University of Michigan Debate Camp.

Update for 2024 TOC: Currently am an attorney and I judge here and there. I judged a few rounds at Long Beach this year, but have not judged rounds since then.

tldr: I'll judge anything but I like policy debates more. Just make warranted arguments and tell me how I should vote and why.

Newest thoughts:

- steal prep and I'm docking points

- don't make your opponent send you a marked doc for just 1-2 marked cards - that is something you should be tracking - I notice this is something teams do and then they just use the time to keep prepping their next speeches

General Notes:

1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. I flow on paper and care a lot about structure. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and reward the team that did.

2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well.

3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing.

4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude.

5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk.

6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply need to read, then say so in your speech.

7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag) as long as its funny :)

Topicality: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

K Aff's: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.Framework: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

Theory: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

Disads: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

Counterplans: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

Kritiks: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k was my baby in high school and I think it answers everything. Security was Notre Dame's main thing when I was there so go for that too. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.

UC Berkeley ‘21

Okemos High School ‘18

General Stuff

My name is Manav Rathod and I am a student at UC Berkeley. I did 4 years of policy debate at Okemos High School (Okemos, MI). Senior year I qualified to the TOC with 3 bids. In high school, I mainly read Kritikal arguments (Afropessimism, Cap, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Queer Theory) on both the aff and neg, however, don’t let that influence your thoughts on me as a judge. I have found many “policy” debates much more interesting/enjoyable than many “k v k” debates. Go for whatever you think is the best strategy to win the debate and execute it to the best of your ability – I will be happy regardless of the specific content.

There is no argument I am not willing to listen to. Debate is a space to explore your intellectual interests and be creative, so you should take advantage of that. So, if you like going for the politics DA, go for it. However, you should refrain from arguments that directly attack a person’s identity (such as racism good, sexism good, etc.). I am perfectly ok with listening to extinction good.

Tech > truth – as long as an argument has some warrant attached to it, it is true until addressed by the other team. I will do my best to protect the 2NR.

Topic Knowledge – I have some familiarity with the topic, however, it will benefit you to explain complicated nuances and to spell out acronyms (only once).

I flow on my computer and like being able to line arguments up.

My email is manav (dot) rathod (at) gmail (dot) com. I would like to be added to the email chain. You can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or want additional feedback about the round.

Speaks

I will try to keep speaks in the range of 28 – 29.5.

Speaker points will be determined by your persuasiveness, clarity, and strategic mindset. Smart debaters will always outspeak debaters who are just really clear.

Being funny, referencing TV shows, using easy to understand examples (especially in K debates), etc. will boost your speaks.

Kritiks

Neg

I won’t hack for your K – you must do the work of explaining your argument.

I don’t mind a long overview, but I would prefer it if all relevant parts could be moved to the line-by-line. I would prefer it if links were done somewhere on the line-by-line (I don’t care where just don’t put them in the overview). Also, labeling links with cool names is good.

Specificity is key – if you aren’t doing the work to show why the 1AC specifically is bad (by pulling lines from their evidence and contextualizing your 1NC cards to the action of the plan), I am likely going to buy the perm solves. You don’t need links to the plan, but you should try to contextualize your generic links to the 1AC as much as possible.

You don’t need an alt, but you should spend time framing what my ballot means in a world where there is no alt to resolve the K’s impacts.

“K tricks” are fine but be smart with them – don’t just throw stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.

FW is important – you should very clear offense here as well as defensive arguments. Having good framing cards in the 1NC (especially if you are going one-off) is important. I can be persuaded that I shouldn’t evaluate the plan.

Demonstrating robust knowledge of your theory, as opposed to constantly reading blocks off your computer, will likely boost your speaks.

Aff

FW should never be “Ks bad.” Winning the FW debate for the Aff requires having a clear reason why your model of debate is good (e.g. fairness, political deliberation, etc) and making sure you answer all the neg’s tricks (e.g. Antonio 95, fiat is illusory, etc.). Being technical here is very key and I can be convinced to weigh only the consequences of plan action.

Perms should be thoroughly explained by the 1AR.

I think a lot of the common “policy tricks” (pragmatism, extinction first, etc.) make a lot of intuitive sense, but you still need to do a good job establishing them.

Coming into the debate with a strong understanding of the neg’s position will help you immensely, so you should be reading their cards and making sure you use cross-x to really understand their argument. It will make it easier to find their weak spot.

K v K Debates

I can be convinced not to give the Aff a perm, but a lot of the neg’s arguments for why I shouldn’t are usually quite silly, but must be answered by the Aff.

Both teams need to have a robust number of historical examples.

Links and net-benefits to the perm should be clearly labeled.

FW (T-USFG)

Neg

While I read a K-Aff in high-school, I am very persuaded by a lot of the arguments by FW teams. You can definitely go for procedural fairness as an impact. I also like arguments about truth-testing/argumentative refinement and research. Explaining the importance of each these in the context of predictable limits can make a very easy neg ballot.

I am not very persuaded by impacts like dogmatism or state good. While I think there is some merit to the dogmatism impact, I haven’t heard a very strong argument about why that would outweigh any offense the Aff generally goes for. I think truth-testing functions as a much more persuasive defensive argument to mitigate a lot of the Aff offense. State good is more convincing to me as a K of the aff’s refusal of certain forms of political engagement.

TVAs don’t need to solve the Aff but should somehow align with the Aff’s criticism of the status quo. Having a card isn’t necessary but would be cool.

I am perfectly fine with a short 1NC shell with no cards other than definitions.

Aff

Impact turn stuff and you will probably be fine.

You don’t need a w/m.

You don’t even necessarily need a c/I – but it will make it harder for you to win unless you go for debate bad, which is perfectly fine.

Slow down when explaining your DAs – teams often breeze through several 1 or 2 sentences DAs that I can’t follow. Your 2AC analysis should have a clear warrant as to why the neg’s interpretation is bad, what the impact to that is, and how your interpretation solves. Examples here are key.

Defense is important, don’t forget it.

You should be very clear and upfront about why the TVA or reading it on the neg doesn’t solve.

DAs

Not much to say here. Impact calc is good and should be done sooner rather than later.

CPs

I don’t have many thoughts about CP theory – so do whatever you like. Words pics are probably not cool, but if you want to go for it.

You should probably have a solvency advocate. Using 1AC lines to justify a cp will boost your speaks.

T

I enjoy a really good T debate. Both teams should be doing a good job explaining what debate looks like under different interpretations of the topic.

Impact Turns

I love a good impact turn debate. DeDev, Heg Good, Heg Bad, Warming Good, Extinction Good, etc. I love them all. Especially, against K-Affs or new Affs they can be very strategic and should be heavily utilized.

Theory

I will vote on new affs bad – given the neg can explain a coherent impact.

Clipping

Don't clip. I will keep my eye out for it. If I catch it, I will warn you (unless it was egregious). If I catch you doing it again, I will give you 0 speaks and the loss. I will also allow the round to continue to the end.

If you believe the other team is clipping, start recording them and present the recording to me after the speech. I will listen and decide. You won't be penalized for calling out another team for clipping, as long as you do so in a manner that allows the round to continue smoothly.

If you are reading unhighlighted cards, I will expect you to read the whole thing, unless you clarify before your speech. If you don't, I will consider that as clipping.

Please add me to the email chain: tsxbcdebate@gmail.com

Top-level Debate Opinions:

1. I'll evaluate almost any argument presented to me in round.
2. If an argument is conceded and adequately, I'll consider it in my decision.
3. I love, love, love seeing smart analytics against bad arguments.
4. The best way to get my vote is by having a clear view of where you want to spend your time and telling me a coherent story as to why the arguments you are going for mean you have won the round.

2023-2024 Policy Topic: New to the topic. Don't assume deep knowledge.

Case: Contest the affirmative. Most AFFs are not well constructed and their impact scenarios are embarrassingly fake. So, if you are deciding between adding a T shell --- that you and I know you won't go for --- and having more case arguments, do the latter.

Counter-plans: I'll listen to any CP, doesn't mean every CP is fair --- tell me if the NEG is cheating. Using CX to isolate how the AFF solves, then explaining how the CP solves those mechanisms, is how to win the CP debate.

Disadvantages: These are my favorite debates to judge. Do impact calculus and sprinkle in some turns case analysis, and you have a winning recipe. Prioritize DAs that link to the AFF.

Kritiks: I enjoy well thought out Ks that have specific links and reasons why the 1AC is a bad idea. As the links become more general, I give increasing leeway to the specificity of the AFF outweighing generic indicts of topic or whatever the K is problematizing. You would also being do yourself a great disservice if you don't answer the AFF. Also, going for the K doesn't mean you can skip impact calculus.

K-AFFs: These are fine (even ran one for a season), but I think that framework is a powerful tool that is very persuasive if articulated well. If you are reading a K-AFF, thorough explanations of what voting AFF means and why that solves your impact is the path to victory.

Speed: I am fine with spreading, but always choose clarity over speed. I'll call out clear and slow as appropriate. Using a more conversational speed during the rebuttals is an excellent way to create contrast and emphasize your winning arguments.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy judging these rounds. I'll still listen to your theory shells and definitely include it in your 2AC, but, if you are going to go for theory, have a compelling reason.

Topicality: T debates are fun to judge. What I enjoy are NEG teams reading T for the sake of reading T shells; why not just use that time to do something that will actually help you in the 2NR?

Thank you for opening my paradigm.

Please don't spread. I like the stock issues. In general, I am not a big fan of extinction arguments or critiques. Also, I appreciate politeness and can be offended by swearing.

Just explain your arguments well. don't speed talk, dont spread. I strongly believe that the ultimate objective of debate is lost if the listeners do not understand what you are trying to say. Inorder for me to judge effectively, I must understand what you say, your arguments and your supporting evidence. I will give you my rapt attention and commitment that I will listen to you very carefully, that I will flow and make every attempt to understand what you are saying. You inturn have to make a commitment that you will speak clearly and make better argumentation.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I like logic based arguments with a strong link chain to the impacts.

Most impacts are fine with me, but your cards and link chain needs to sell me on your argument for me to vote you up.

I will be voting on the side that have provided the most evidence and have proved to me that they should win the round.

Make sure to impact weigh and sign post. Also I would prefer if there was no spreading, please.

I love it when there is a voters section at the end of the last speech and specific judge instruction.

Tell me why you deserve to win the round at the end of your last speech, it will help me contextualize the whole round.

No spreading or I will drop the team.

Other than that, basically anything is fair game, just don't be mean to me or your opponents.

And include me in the email chain: marybelleuk99@gmail.com

I'm not like most judges, I'm a cool judge (.5 extra speaker points if you tell me what movie I'm alluding to).

I prefer policy arguments, but honestly, anything goes. Just explain your arguments.

ASK ME QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND!!! DON'T BE SHY :) I only bite when I'm hungry.

My email is: emnemgirl@icloud.com

✧ EXPERIENCE AND ETIQUETTE:

I competed in Policy and LD for four years in high school and I now compete in LD and Parli in college. I've been judging for almost four years now and I used to coach LD as well. I'm fine with speed so go as fast as you like. If there is something particularly important such as an dropped argument, an alternative, counter plan texts or anything else you NEED me to hear I suggest you slow down and emphasize it. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Time yourselves and keep document sharing time within reason. If doc sharing exceeds a minute its going to come out of your prep. If there is an email chain Id like to be on it, my email is toriawilson18@gmail.com. I will usually always give my decision and RFD unless instructed not to.

✧ GENERAL:

Do whatever you want, run whatever you want. Ill even vote on a shrek k as long as it has proper links and impact analysis. As a judge Im just here to evaluate the outcome of the round but its your responsibility as debaters to create the outcome you want. That being said, argument clash, line by line answers, and impact analysis are extremely important. Although its difficult not to, I will not connect arguments for you. If there are not proper extensions those arguments wont be analyzed when making my final decision. I've been told I 'judge like a policy debater' whatever that means.

✧ THEORY & TOPICALITY:

Let me start by saying that I don't like theory all that much. Its whatever, if you want to run it go ahead. Ill evaluate it but ill be bored as hell doing it. I definitely don't want to watch 1NC thats 5 off on theory, try to limit yourself. I will be very hesitant to vote on any topicality or theory arguments that lack impacts or proper violations.

✧ KRITIKS:

Criticisms need strong links and a clearly articulated alternative. Im fine with voting for pre-fiat impacts but keep in mind you must be winning your FW debate. I will not vote on a K unless you do the work of proving why i should vote the 1AC down. Not why i should reject the squo, not why the state is bad and the plan is bad because it uses the state, etc. If all you can prove is that the aff exists in the world of the k then your'e outta luck. If you plan on running a particularly unique k then please explain it thoroughly. K affs are fine, I've run a multitude myself. BUT like I said above I find myself voting most k affs down against FW or theory. I will have no problem voting for a k aff that can prove that their advocacy is implementable, how the advocacy solves in either the pre fiat or the post fiat world (or both), and that the mechanism/advocacy in which the aff is implemented through still allows the negative ground in the round. Even if you can win that discourse precedes fairness/rules I need to see how the neg can contest the aff without a hyperspecific 1NC or a generic policymaking good fw shell.

✧ IMPACT CALC:

I tend to vote on impacts with a higher probability and a decent magnitude versus terminal impacts with a 1% chance of happening but again my vote is ultimately determined by your in round performance/analysis. At the end of the day it's up to you what I vote for.

✧ SPEAKS & OTHER:

Speaker points will be awarded based on the organization and efficiency of a debaters speech, quality of arguments made, and cross ex performance. Im fine with cussing however if it becomes excessive I may drop your speaks. Ill also drop speaks for being excessively rude, snarky or hostile towards your opponents. Keep it friendly please.

At the end of the day debate is supposed to be fun. Don't stress yourself out too much. Drink your water and do your best. (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

If you keep up with news you will probably receive a winning ballot from me. Please don’t run a case without knowing the most current info on your topic.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging in debate.

I prefer clarity over speed and arguments need to backed up with sufficient evidence. Be sure to explain your arguments when you are extending - "Extend [card name]" won't be good enough.

Please write out my ballot for me and do impact calculus

In general just don't be rude or offensive, it will affect your speaks.

This is my first year judging debate; I am a parent judge.

In a debate:

1. Speak clearly and slowly. I do not understand spreading.

2. Do impact calculus! Write my ballot for me in the last speeches.

3. It is your job to make sure that I understand your arguments very clearly; I cannot and will not try to evaluate arguments that are ambiguous.

4. Be respectful!

I am a parent judge who has judged parliamentary and policy debate before for 1 year.

I have judged 2 rounds on the arms sales topic this year.

I prefer slow speaking and explaining. I prefer a stock issue debate.

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

About me: Hi, my name is Roy Zheng, and I'm a parent judge who has judged for almost 6 years for my 2 daughters. One competed in Expository Speech all throughout high school, and the other is actively competing in Policy/LD Debate in high school right now.

Judging/Event Types: Policy, PuFo, LD, Speech Events

Speaker points: You can get good speaker points by being confident and having smart, concise arguments that are well-warranted and explained well. Please make sure you respect your opponents as well!

At the end of the debate, I like to look at arguments again and review which side made the best claims and had the best evidence for comparison. Impact weighing during your rebuttal speeches helps me a lot with my decisions too, so please make sure you don't forget to talk about your impacts! I will evaluate any type of impact, as long as you explain it well.

I take notes/flow the entire debate and listen to cross examination.

Feel free to ask me before the round starts if you have any questions. Please be kind and confident, as debate is supposed to be fun and we're all here to learn :-)