Check RFD

I was a four year competitor, and now coach PF. I have experience in PF LD and Policy. My background is primarily in PF. I can flow at any speed. I am fine with all types of arguments including K's. I do not like K's that do not interact with the resolution or opponents directly. So no disclosure theory because I find it takes the educational aspect out of the debate. Please for your sake weigh.

PF- I don't need you to read the resolution. I don't flow cross, so if something significant comes up I need to see it later in a speech. Second rebuttal should front line! With the adjustment to time in the summary I will be highly critical of content covered. Summery is the most important speech in the round, and you will struggle to win my ballot if summery falls apart. Please use argument selection and don't go for everything! Final needs to condense summery even more so. Again please weigh! I do not need terminal defense in summery but it should be final.

LD- I coach novice. Treat me like a lay judge. I will be able to keep up and follow even the most complicated link chains. I am more lenient with theory and K's in LD. I will flow CX in LD. Explain explicitly why I should prioritize your value/Value criterion over your opponents or I will do it myself.

After Round- Please feel free to contact me after round for any further questions or find me in person. Beck.jakob37@gmail.com

I have been judging for 4 years mostly focused on LD. I've come to really enjoy it and look forward to hearing from you.

What I am looking for:

Content is king for me: Having a good, sound argument where you clearly understand the facts/cards/reasoning of your aff and/or neg and can clearly explain them to those who do not is what I am looking for.

I am also looking for an organized thought process and adherence to the LD framework. Your actions should almost always be taking it back to your value and core contentions.

I understand Spreading is an approved technique, but if you are going so fast I can't understand your case, you can't win the argument, no matter how good it is. Speed is acceptable, as long as I can understand what you are saying. I am a professional communicator for a major healthcare company, and if I counseled my executive leader to speak super fast I would not have a job (and neither would the executive).

If you are going so fast I can't understand, I will give one warning. Again, the content of your argument and an organized framework will go much farther with me than getting lots of information/facts and figures on the table.

And know this: I am NOT a fan of Kritik. Do at your own risk.

It is important that everyone learn from this experience, so my comments will be broken into what you did well and opportunities for improvement.

Lastly, I appreciate all the hard work you put into this and am constantly impressed by students who have the courage to do this and their amazing skills. Thank you!

I'm a former debater from Florida and competed locally and nationally on my team for three years. I was in PF the entire time but I also have experience judging LD.

PF

Collapse and weigh towards the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument and you honestly feel like you've built a decent narrative for it, reiterate it!

Offense that you want me to consider should be put in both summary and final focus. All I ask is that you properly warrant it and do not extend through ink.

Defense does not need to be extended in summary unless you really feel like an argument is in critical danger. It would probably be beneficial as a second speaking team more often than not.

I may call for evidence if I feel it's justified. If you tell me to call for evidence, I absolutely will at the end of the round. If evidence is miscut, let me know!

Roadmaps are nice and signposting is lovely. Go take your spreading to other events and leave it out of PF!

Have fun throughout the round please. I love movie/tv references and jokes throughout the round if they're tasteful, I'll definitely give you higher speaks for them.

LD

I'm comfortable with spreading as long as competitors can send me their case. I'm familiar with traditional and progressive styles/arguments. I'm not too picky about what I want to see in the round.

Theory is fine as long as it's developed and warranted very well so be careful with it. If I see that the theory is not genuine, it could have the opposite effect you'd like it to.

Just like in my PF paradigm, tasteful jokes, memes, and references could get you more speaks but won't affect my voting decision.

speak slow and weigh

I'm Erica Jacobson and I'm a student at Harrison High School in Harrison, NY. I did 2 years of traditional debate for a local league program before coming to Harrison.

I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides otherwise I don't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names.

Your reasoning should be plausible with credible evidence that is able to sway the audience, considering the classical modes of persuasion. Articulate your words clearly, follow what you say, thereby connecting with the audience. Furthermore, if a case is made and not countered/refuted, then it will be deemed as true in the round.

I am a senior psychology major at Villanova University. I have no prior experience in debate, and I am a lay judge who wants slow speaking! Please do not use debate jargon or spread.

Zoey Lin (she/her/hers)

Lexington '20 | Dartmouth '24

Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [lin.debate@gmail.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]

I'm colorblind, so please highlight in green (or give me time to change your color)

Also if y'all wanna bring me food, like... I won't say no. To be clear I'm not asking for food, I'm just saying it will make me happy <3

tl;dr

Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at. I promise I'm very low maintenance, as long as you're nice, give me an outlet and a chair, and are a reasonable human being I will and flow what you say! Don't be rude pls

This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy

Please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mumble + echo + distance + zoom. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I said it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Policy (Updated 9.23.23)

Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think).

Frame the round and tell a good story, unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes. Other than that, I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc). Do your best with neg ground—even though you need a DA, that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios.

Other thoughts: I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for theory and I'm happy to vote on 2+ condo bad!

What You're Here For (K Stuff)

Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. Despite that, I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it and the history of the args I read supports that idea. I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory) and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for psychoanalysis and various anti-capitalist lit bases (marxism, left accelerationism, semio-capitalism). I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good. That being said, I don't want to listen to nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts... K teams win when they are able to contextualize their k to their opponent's args, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.

LD (Updated 11.18.23)

I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).

If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil, and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.

Long LD Specific Paradigm: I aspire to be Henry Curtis

*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." While that is me... I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much thanks!

Misc Stuff

I flow on a computer and sometimes often away or stare blankly. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking

I've realized that zoom debate has made it so that y'all prep so loudly. I don't super care but it's also just jarring that I can hear all of your conversations about the debate and especially your conversations about me...

Bottom Line

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space. If you are looking for additional resources, please check out https://www.windebate.org/ for the most passionate mentors and https://www.girlsdebate.org/ for funny memes, cool people, and amazing overall help.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

Good luck!

I debated 2 years for Dulles High School on the local circuit in Houston, TX. I was more of a lay debater, but I don't mind progressive argumentation. I'm currently a senior at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework that I should use to evaluate the round. Your framework/decision calculus (of any kind) should be explained and justified well.

I've been out of the activity for a while, and I don't remember every technical detail of more progressive arguments. This means that I'm not up to speed on the norms of progressive arguments. Acronyms and quick analytics will leave me confused. Explain them well, tell me what I need to do, and above all, make sure you're not being frivolous.

On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm a 6-7. Slow down for signposts and tag lines. If you're going too fast, I'll say "clear" but I've probably already missed something by then. If it's not on my flow, I won't vote off of it. Running through key voters and a breakdown of the round will help me a lot in your closing speech.

I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. If you debate strategically, speak eloquently, CX well, and/or are humorous, you'll probably be looking at higher speaks. Let me know if speaks might help you clear.

Email chain: bliu30@wharton.upenn.edu

Hi - I went to high school in China and debated LD, PF, and BP in nat circuits. I'm now at NYU.

Feel free to email me before-round about any questions or clarification, email is at the bottom of this :)

Paradigm:

TL;DR Version:

I learn more towards traditional than I do progressive/circuit, but I don't prefer one type of debate over the other. I'm completely ok with fast speaking, but prefer that you don't spread - if you have to in order to fit your case in, that's fine, but please send me your cards before the debate starts. I'm not the best at judging Ts or spikes. I will judge anything you throw at me - I don't inherently like or dislike anything in the realm of debate, so run whatever argument you feel comfortable with. That being said, please make it as easy as possible for me to understand.

ONLINE DEBATE: If you have a pet, show me and I'll bump your speaks by 0.2 for each animal :)

LONG VERSION:

Theory Debates:

As long as it isn't a "my version of this is better than your version" of this without engagement on your opponent's points, I'm open to it and enjoy a good theory clash. Please carry your arguments throughout the entire debate (recap at the 2AR/ 1NR). That said, a well-fleshed out traditional debate is just as good, and can also win the ballot. I don't have a preference.

Nuance:

Technical or political language that isn't considered "common knowledge" should be quickly explained. I cannot judge a concept or evidence that I don't understand. Any important terms/theories/background info should be explained in a formal "speech" - it should not only be explained on the off-chance it's brought up in CX.

Frameworks:

I view the framework as the structure that an entire team's arguments should be based around. I view being able to support your own framework to be just as important as knocking down your opponent's. Tearing holes in the other team's frameworks while being unable to defend your own will not earn you full points from me.

CX:

I don't flow CX. If there's something you want to emphasize, bring it up in the 1NC or 1AR.

VI/RoB:

*Please* do this. It makes the debate much easier for me to judge, allows the debaters to frame things in a way that ultimately helps them, and just makes life much much easier.... please do it T.T

Evidence Ethics:

Demonstrated transgression of evidence ethics warrants an automatic loss.

Email is kathy.liu@nyu.edu. I'm in China so Gmail lags a bit sometimes - for as long as we are online, the NSDA Dropbox thing might be the fastest way.

I am a traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention, clash, and strong crystallization. Translation: This isn't Congress or Policy.

I don't mind speed, unless it is simply a means of spreading-spread at your own risk.

I keep a vigorous flow, but if I cannot understand your arguments I cannot flow them-are we clear?
Do not heavily rely on esoteric counter-plans or kritques, but that does not mean I will not entertain them when used appropriately and well. I don't mind "out there" arguments-make them mean something and be sure to weigh them.

Beware jargon-I do not have a degree in that.

Please sign-post, but avoid off-time road maps.

DO NOT OFFER TO FLASH your cases-I should not have to read them to decide a winner-this is supposed to about verbal debate that "lay" people can understand-Check out who Lincoln and Douglas actually were.
Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of debate, and make sure I can follow you.

Thank You for taking the time to read my paradigm. By reading this, you have already proven that you are taking the round serious and have taken the first step in winning your round. Congratulations!!

I am a lay/parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. Like you, I learn more and more every time I hear a debate.

A few things that I am looking for :

1. Confidence : You have spent a lot of time and energy preparing for this debate. You have more knowledge about this topic then most. SHOW IT!

2. Sportsmanship : Like you, your opponent has spent a lot of time and energy preparing for this debate. Respect for your opponent is expected.

3. Time Management : It's your time, use it.

4. Continuity in Contentions : How and why do your contentions prove your value and value criterion? I need to know how and why information provided proves your case.

5. Voting Issues : Help me make my decision. Tell me why you should have the ballot. What did you do to win ? What did your opponent not do?

SPREADING .... I will be flowing during the round. I will be making my decision based on the competitor that has offered the best case. If I can not understand or follow the information that you are giving, I will not be able to award you the ballot. Please DO NOT SPREAD.

By simply deciding to compete and working hard to achieve, you have proven to be the BEST that you can be !!

Have FUN and GOOD LUCK !!

I am a parent judge. I have been judging public forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Speech for last 3 years. I work as a senior engineer in a defense industry.

1) I don't prefer spreading, because if I can't understand and follow you what you are saying, I can't judge you well based upon the content of your debate.

2) Be concise and clear, and present your contentions and arguments well.

3) Be respectful and civil to opponents.

4) For online tournaments, I would like to have all the contestants with their camera on during the debate round even when they are not speaking. Keep yourself muted if you are not speaking.

Hello! My name is Matt Murno.

In order to win here are some things you should do:

Things you should do:

1. I feel like weighing has been decreasing a lot throughout the years, so if you are in front of me you should have clear weighing at the end of your speech and link to the winning FW.

2. It’s been a while since I have heard spreading, so I would prefer more conversational speed, but nothing much faster than that.

3. Voters are huge for me, I want clear numbered voters linked to the FW.

Things you should NOT do:

1. Don’t spread, I won’t be able to understand you.

2. Don’t be too techy, I’m truth>tech, so if an arg is definitely false I won’t vote on it even if it was dropped (I.e. racism doesn’t exist)

3.Don’t read args like racism, sexism, etc good.

4.Be respectful to your opponent.

5.Don’t read theory or K’s, you can make those kinds of arguments, like an AFF about something K-ish like feminism or racism but not something super complicated. For theory, don’t read a shell, I might consider paragraph theory if it is reasonable and not frivolous and VERY CLEAR what I’m voting on and why.

Email: rosendyr@gmail.com

I was a PF debater. I will flow everything but cross. Be clear, weigh, and interact with your opponents' arguments. Also, humor and unique arguments appreciated. NO new arguments/cards in FF.

For LD treat me as a lay judge, NO spreading.

Make me laugh = ^speaks

TLDR: Just do you and do it well. Tabula rasa motherfuckers (to an extent).

Let's get right to it. I have debated policy, public forum, and LD before, so I am familiar with elements like kritiks, dis-ads, and counter plans, but this paradigm is written specifically for LD, which I will be judging. If you want to include me in email chains, my email is crdec123@gmail.com. Make the subject line your name and position (Aff or Neg). Know before going into the round that I do not disclose, so do not expect that from me.t

Character

Be respectful to your opponent. Do not talk down to them, do not patronize them, take their arguments seriously and assume that they're at your intelligence level. Because they are. I do not like arrogance and condescension, and you will lose speaker points if I see that in the round. Also, be respectful to the judges. This should come without saying, but don't be a bigot. If it sounds subjective, then it's meant to be.

Speed

Don't spread/spew. I'm generally very good at flowing speed, so you can go fast, but when it comes to the point where it is incomprehensible, I'll abbreviate your arguments and not be as detailed with your case. In other words, don't sacrifice articulation for speed. If you can do both, great.

Framework

I love a good framework debate, so if you want to make me happy then prove why your framework is better. Also, tie this in throughout the round whether you're attacking, defending, or doing voters, the framework isn't something that should be ignored so please pay attention to it.

Argumentation

My ideal structure for your arguments is pretty simple and straightforward: have a claim, mention the card that supports that claim, and then go over the impact of your argument. Simple structure, should be easy to follow. You don't need to quote your cards if you don't want to, for me citing the source, author, and the year is fine. I'll also allow you to paraphrase if you want, but directly quoting your source goes for me a lot further than just paraphrasing it. Be respectful and also be smart with your arguments: saying something like "My opponent effectively supports genocide" or "My opponent would like to see the global economy collapse" really bothers me. Also, I may ask to look at your evidence if something seems off to me.

I would prefer it if you didn't drop any arguments. Make sure no contention goes unattacked or undefended, I judge the round based off of the flow and an unanswered attack or an unattacked point will stick out. Other than that, I don't have any preferences on how you choose to argue your points as long as you do them well. Also, don't forget your V and VC: you're in LD, so definitely pay attention to how that plays in the round. I think it is a very important part of the debate, do not neglect it. Impact calc goes a long way for me too. Pretty much just do you, but be good and confident about it.

Cross-examination

If both you and your opponent are near-equal when it comes to winning the flow, your performance in cross-examination can be the deciding factor in whether or not you win or lose the round, and this happens both when you ask the questions and when you're answering them. When asking, be very strategic with your questions and make sure you have a plan. It should be clear that you have put plenty of thought into your questions, and that you know exactly what to ask to get your opponent to admit to something, or to agree with something, that is not in their interest. If I see where you are going with your line of questioning, I'll likely be impressed. If you get the result that you want and you mention it in your second speech, I'll be even more impressed, so use CX very well. Also, be smart when you answer the questions: it should be clear to me that you've thought about what your opponent will ask you, and that you have anticipated what they would want you to admit or agree to. This won't win you the round alone, but when the victor isn't obvious, I'll make my decision based off of CX performance.

Speaker Points

You start at 27 points and you gain if you do well, which includes managing articulation and speed impressively and mastering emotion and conviction. You start to lose points for being inarticulate, too slow, or simply being unconvincing to the point where it is distracting.

EDIT

A really good quip, I have just realized, goes really far.

EDIT 2

If your opponent is being too fast or inarticulate, I'll allow you to shout "Clear!" and force them to slow down and enunciate.

EDIT 3

If you don't need time signals, I won't tell you when you go over, but I'll still judge you heavily for it if you do (over 15 and I'll drop you). If you have your own timer then you have no reason to not stay within the time allotted for the speech.

EDIT 4

You won't lose speaker-points for cussing (as long as what you're saying isn't grotesque, obscene, or bigoted). So if you want to say "My impacts are some really scary shit" I won't care.

hi! i'm a senior at hunter and i do pf :-)

i'm putting this at the top because it's the most important: please warrant and weigh! good warrants >> evidence, evidence + analytics >> evidence. i don't want to intervene, so weighing is important.

i'm tech > truth, but don't use that as an excuse to make outlandish or incorrect claims.

extend your offense (including warrants and impacts) through summary and final focus.

i will not be paying attention in cross, so please bring it up in the round if it's important; let me know if you want to skip cross for prep, i'm happy to do that if both teams agree.

not super well-versed in progressive argumentation but will do my best to evaluate it; make sure your opponent is comfortable with it & run it in an accessible way.

don't read anything racist/sexist/otherwise offensive — i will drop you and give you low speaks.

have fun and feel free to email me (sandhyasethuraman@hunterschools.org) if you have any questions!

email: sshi.debate@gmail.com

Strath Haven '20 | Penn '24

experience: debated policy all of high school (haven't listened to spreading since though)

==================================================================

LD: Important things to note:

- i have little to no experience with ld, so things like reverse voter theory will need to be well explained and not rapid fire.

- It's been a bit since I've done anything with debate so I won't promise that I can flow spreading.

==================================================================

i've mostly run policy args during my time in debate, but i'll vote for anything if you tell me why i should.

specifics:

(I haven't thought about these in a couple years, oops)

disads - good, im very familiar with these.

counterplans - also good

impact turns - going for big turns are fun, and i will enjoy them lots if you take lots of time warranting out stuff and having a fun time with seeing what you can do with them

k's - i'm open to args with most exp with args like Cap, Security, Bio, etc... high theory args are confusing (and im pretty sure everybody will think so too) so make sure you explain those well. i think neg will need a specific and well developed link debate and i think neg should still engage lots with the aff, because its likely i will weigh the k and the aff unless proven otherwise. case turns against k's are good.

k affs - i'm also open to these, although to be fair most of my time with k affs is when i read T against them. i think neg should allocate a good amount of time on case because i dont think its done enough

t/fw - i like to think fairness is an important impact, but i think you can have really good debates about education. make sure abuse story is clear. I'm generally compelled by t args if the interp/counter interp debate is really clear. i generally am compelled to believe that the ballot is only win/loss, but a good story might change what i think about the ballot in a round. i like to be a policymaker unless told otherwise.

theory - substance is better, i have sort of high threshold for voting on theory args and esp rejecting teams if theory wasnt dropped or it isn't very clear about why i should reject the team

--- condo is chill

--- LD: i will give more weight to theory args if explained well to me because of how things go in LD

speaks - i think mostly common sense will help when approaching this

--- timing and such should be done by teams themselves

--- being overtly rude will dock pts

--- disclosing is good practice

--- efficiency and reducing downtime between speeches/prep is awesome

Hello competitors,

I am a lay judge and most of my debate background is in LD. Please do not spread and, Kritiks will not be effective in persuading me. I have some key points for debaters to keep in mind.

1. I believe in professionalism and civility. Please be kind to your opponent. This includes not speaking over each other during cross examinations.

2. Communication should emphasize clarity. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments by filling your time with unnecessary information. Keep your volume up and your speed slow to moderate. If you are unclear due to too fast a pace I cannot award you points you may well deserve. If your opponent needs in their cross to have you reiterate something, chance are you weren't clear enough for me either.

3. Clearly state where you are in your roadmap. You know where you are going, but the rest of us do not. We need to stay with you for you to be successful. This includes clearly state values and contentions.

4. Be sure to challenge your opponents case. Clearly state your attack as such and remember to diminish your opponents attacks on your case. When on the attack: refuting your opponent's case is very persuasive and having a clash on these points creates a good debate. Be politely aggressive by making new arguments against an opponent's case instead of just referring to your case as this extends the flow of the debate. The same is true when you are on the defense. Present reasons (with proof if applicable) why your opponents attack is wrong instead of simply reiterating that your point is "more correct".

5. If your opponent fails to attack one of your arguments, or attacks it poorly, then your evidence holds. Debater with the most contentions, with the best flow, and the most clarity wins.

I vote the side with the most persuasive argument and who counters arguments most effectively while supporting their own side.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

Krishna Shriram

I debated for four years at William Tennent High School, mostly LD (but I did a good amount of Policy as well). I am now an Assistant Coach at Pennsbury High School and a student of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The details of my personal life may bore you, but I only include them so you can know that I am not completely clueless in the realm of debate.

To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:

>The most important aspect of my judging philosophy is tabula rasa.

>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.

>I am fine with spreading. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

>I love good framework debate. It's easier for me to pick a winner when I have a clear lens through which I can evaluate the round.

>I guess evidence is nice and a good thing to have. Extending that evidence throughout the round is also nice.

Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.

"As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself..." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I am a lay judge and enjoy the art of debate. In my work, I debate people everyday. I will be looking for clear communication and well thought out cases. Going too fast is distracting and there is a risk that if you go too fast I won't hear the key elements of the case so be mindful of this. The way you present yourself is important, confidence matters so come well prepared. I am okay with technology, students should feel free to use computers or phones. I will be looking for you to be respectful to your opponent at all times.

I am a parent judge. My experience has been judging Debate - Novice, JV, & Varsity PF and LD Debates. Have also judged Speech events.

Clarity, consistency of reasoning, and evidence-based based arguments, are of prime importance. And, of course, civility during the process.

Comfortable with any speed as long as the above points are noted.

Please note at the start if you - (i) plan to spread (technical debate), (ii) would like time signals.

Best wishes & good luck!

email: christinewang111@gmail.com

Hi! I'm a current freshman in college that did 3-ish years of circuit and trad LD debate. I didn't debate senior year. This is my first time judging Varsity LD. This is my first time judging and hearing any arguments on the jan/feb LD topic.

LD:

- I ran k's and larp in hs and that's what I'm most familiar with. less familiar with Phil, make sure you explain things clearly. not confident in evaluating t/theory but will vote on it if i have to. make sure you clearly articulate the abuse story. truth>tech

- please don't assume I know lit-specific buzzwords because I probably forgot them. it's been over a year

- speed is ok but please keep in mind that I have a bit of hearing loss that makes it hard for me to understand unclear speech (especially over the internet). if you're clear it should be fine, so clarity>>speed

- tricks, skep, friv theory: please do not run them.

But otherwise I judge similarly to Megha Prasad: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=41207

Background: I’m a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies & Communication, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain: emiwhite@sas.upenn.edu

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since audio can cut out on virtual platforms.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponent and/or they've done something really really abusive, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot. Also slow down a bit and explain - I will miss something if you rattle off 3 standards in 5 seconds with minimal warranting.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.