A little bit about me: I am a MBA Candidate at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University on track to graduate in May 2020 and also graduated from Cornell for my undergraduate degree in Industrial and Labor Relations and a minor in Business, Class of 2019.

My paradigm is as follows:

- Spreading results in an automatic loss

- Enunciation and articulation, or lack of, will be weighted for/against your score

- Measurable evidence will be favored over hypothetical statements - support for hypothetical statements utilizing historical precedents and/or measurable evidence is also appropriate

- If a case is not refuted/countered, it will be assumed as true

- Flow is important - points and evidence should clearly link together

- You will be asked to time yourselves; however, I will also keep time

I'm a parent judge who has judged JVLD locally, and VLD nationally but still consider myself new to VLD judging. Keep cases and arguments focused on the resolution. Keep your arguments and your speech clear, and debate your opponent respectfully.

Overwhelming an opponent (and judge) with reckless speed and an overabundance of arguments is unnecessary. If speed is making you unintelligible, I'll ask you to stop. Number of arguments introduced doesn't decide the winner; thoughtful engagement/clash/rebuttal and whose arguments uphold their side of the resolution best decides. I do not consider technicalities (e.g. dropped argument does not equal concession).

Please add me to your case sharing email chains. manmeetfox@gmail.com

Wake Forest 2014-2018

Email: nedgidley@gmail.com

Texas 2023 Update

Hello! I’m excited to be back judging after a brief hiatus. I had a bad hand injury earlier this fall; two bigger implications of this:
1. Extremely limited topic knowledge—I have not judged on the topic.
2. Flowing somehow even worse—I’m still adjusting to writing/typing with my right hand so I will be needing extra time to flow.

Pre-Northwestern 2021 Update (too many updates, need to clean up this mess)

Topic seems big and complex. I don't know very much so I would err on the side of explaining extra.

ADA/NDT/CEDA Update 2021

Top level--make choices. Prioritize arguments and explain why they matter. Reading comments like this is annoying but I have judged both policy and clash debates where both sides played a game of chicken except neither side caved so the judges just had to evaluate a bunch with almost no comparison, weighing, or calculus. This important for rebuttals but can start early: does the 1nc really need ConCon with 8 words highlighted? Does the aff need 3 advantages? You could extend both DAs quickly in the block or pick one and win it. Also I like a good case debate (realize harder with teams breaking new stuff).

Online debate--[grumpy flow rant]--I know everyone says slow down but easier said when you aren't the one giving a speech that has to respond to a lot. With that said, I do feel that in almost every debate it would be beneficial if people slowed down on analytics/tags. I think I do flow slower than others, but a benefit of online debate is being able to follow ev on my 2nd monitor. It's the non-card parts of the speech that cause problems. Some send no analytics, which would be fine except very quick perms/counter-interps. Others send the analytics and then just blaze through them because they are in the doc. Even if you slow down a tad saying these and give a tiny bit of pen time, it is very helpful (and adds very little time to the speech).

Cards--I really do like them regardless if it is a DA debate, clash debate, T debate etc. I want to reward qualified and specific evidence. But please don't answer a CX question about a warrant with "we have ev."

Time--would love to minimize the time that is neither speeches nor prep time. I really do like to spend the time to look over my flows thoroughly and read over cards. A lot of my decisions take right up till the end and I appreciate having more time (rather than less).

For Northwestern ‘20/Alliances

I did a tiny bit of executive and space work but did not judge any debates so I’m catching up on the debate meta. I have done some research for alliances.

I’m interested to see how much affs do on this topic. I think that consensus will settle somewhere between a pole on one side of affs blowing up alliances (Bandow’s dream) and tiny affs that tinker on the other pole but we will see. Trump seems to loom over.

Online Debate

Slowing down a bit and being clearer helps. Cross-ex is trickier: 4 people talking at the same time was not great with everyone in the same room but I think it’s even worse over Zoom(or comparable video debate platform).

Prefs/Top Level Stuff

Tech or truth?

Lean tech: if I flow a claim, warrant, and impact for an argument you should answer it. Like most judges, I have a somewhat arbitrary gut check for an argument that’s too absurd to vote on even if dropped; but it’s better to answer an arg that to bank on me to find something absurd.

Policy or K?

I made policy arguments as a debater. I lean policy on most arguments in a given clash debate; if I were a debater with an affinity for critical arguments I would not pref a judge like myself highly. But given the tech note above, policy debaters should be wary of just saying “fairness” and dropping every critical argument.

Cards

Love ‘em. I like when these are read. If you can explain why I should prefer your cards on important issues (nuanced warrants, they assume the other side’s best arg, qualifications, etc.) that goes a long way. Demonstrating that you worked hard to assemble the evidence you have and to come up with the strategy you went for is something I want to reward.

More Specific Things

Debating the Case

Love the case debate. A lot of judge philosophies have phrases along the lines of “lost art” in their judge philosophies and I will say I like a good case debate. This goes for a policy or if people are feeling bold critical affirmative. If you want to go for a case turn in the 2NR, I think you need some extra calculus and “even ifs”/tie-breakers in the 2NR. For link turns, I think normally this would be a timeframe argument or maybe a structural reason why you control the impact. For impact turns, normally this is some external offense and then mitigation of the original impact (could be an inevitability debate with a “now key/the sooner the better” warrant or a reason why you internal link turn the worst part of their scenario). Numbering args isn’t always possible but when the 1NC can introduce this (and the order doesn’t get jumbled in the debate) it is a thing of beauty.

Topicality

T cards aren’t the most exciting to cut but they win debates (for both sides). Defining words is important including counterinterpretations. You should meet your counterinterpretation.

Not of a fan of what Bricker calls “planicality”—word salad plantexts written around topic words to make winning a clear violation tough. I think in a lot of these cases, it might just be better for the neg to punish the aff for not having an advocate for anything close to the plantext and using that for CPs (explained below). Related to this, I think plantext in a vacuum is a phrase that gets thrown around with little to no explanation. If you can explain the relationship between mandates and affects in order to frame how I should view T vs. solvency than I am more likely to be persuaded by it.

Counterplans

I think generally I would describe myself as neg leaning but aff sympathetic. Arguments about fairness are important, but I think the literature surrounding an advocacy really shapes of lot for me. I have a hard time telling the negative why they should be required to have a strict advocate for the counterplan if the aff has a plantext that is not supported by a similar advocate.

PICs—like them. Especially if something is specified or in the plantext/advocacy statement.

Summers 94 CPs (counterplans that rely on should/resolved to be immediate/certain)—harder to win for the neg. Good evidence plus a set-up in cross-ex or a cross-application or a theory argument somewhere else can help.

DAs

It’s important for both sides to relate the aff offense and the DA and weigh them. Turns case/DA is important but I prefer a more direct route: e.g. “the link turns advantage 2…” or “the aff solves prolif” rather than “warming turns prolif” (more indirect). Cards also helpful there.

The link is important; otherwise the DA is irrelevant to the aff. On alliances, I think the neg needs to be weary of reading the link booster cards like “smaller shifts matter” or “any perception” because I think that jeopardizes many (of what I assume will be) UQ stories of “Trump rhetoric doesn’t matter; treaty obligations haven’t changed” if the link isn’t about changing the treaty/agreement.

Clash debates

Really don’t like a long 2NC overview (on framework vs a K aff or on the K vs a policy aff) and then tons of the line by line is just “that was above.” I am sure you have spent time coming up with the correct phrasing for your blocks but if you even just move that explanation to the correct part of the debate, it really helps the flow.

I mentioned above that I love hard work and specific strategies. The more recycled a speech feels, the less likely I am to vote for it. I also like cards. Strategies without cards are not great in front of me. These debates normally have a lot of layers (framework, perms, impacts etc.). That makes this debates difficult (and muddled) because you have to both “win” a lot of important arguments and also explain how those implicate the rest of the debate. A good formula I was told for this was “our link is X, our impact is y, we solve with the alt b/c z, even if they win [their best argument] we still win.”

Other Stuff

Don’t be Terrible

While this applies to blatant behaviors like racism or card clipping, it also applies to just interacting with others generally. We are a set of nerds who get together on weekends to read words off of our laptops quickly. Going hard against your opponent’s argument does not require you to go hard against your opponent. Lying (misdisclosing, misleading, misrepresenting, clipping etc.) is detrimental to fun debates.

Things Outside of the Round

Harder to adjudicate on these. I also haven’t been at tournaments the last two years so I’m sure I’ve missed some community developments.

Reciting This Philosophy in Round

Does anyone like this? I’m sure there are silly things I’ve typed here (maybe a typo); please don’t. I haven’t heard an RFD that went along the lines of “I really loved how you kept calling me by my first name. Then you also told me about what I had written on T in my judge philosophy so I couldn’t vote you down.”

Inserting Rehighlights

Seems to be contentious. I would say I don’t care if you read or insert it but whenever you do so it’s important to explain what you are revealing and why that matters. Normally, I think these are best for contextualization. If you rehighlight paragraphs of text or read aloud every word the other side didn’t read then the gist of it is “see their card says other words” which isn’t very helpful.

Have fun!

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

The things I care the most about are annunciation, moderate speed, good quantitative evidence, and most importantly courtesy to the opponents.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1999. I competed in high school from 2000-2002. I also taught at a debate camp for BUDL in 2006.

Since 2002, I have judged at local and national high school debate tournaments. I also judge at various elementary and middle school league tournaments.

I have been described as a liberal judge. I like all of the argument types. I encourage every student to run their arguments in a well-structured and organized fashion. I can handle speed and spreading.

I do provide my email address on every ballot. It is listed below for your convenience. My ballots are usually detailed based on the flow of the round. I flow (take notes) nearly the entire round. I believe that we can all stand to learn from one another. I am also an advocate of research. Analytical arguments are good too. I prefer clash, refutation, and impact calculus during the debate round.

I can be reached via email at Lisadebate02@gmail.com.

Add me to the chain - OliverLanier@gmail.com.

Coaching history:

Oakton High School 2017-2018

Gilman School - 2019-Present

George Mason University - 2018-2020

I decided to add this to the top of my paradigm as it impacts my decision making a lot: you should spend more time actually making arguments. This is distinct from simply slowing down, which shouldn’t be necessary if you commit to your chosen arguments to a greater degree. II think the fastest paced and most technical debates require judges that can both flow at an extremely fast pace (not a bad thing) and have such a great amount of argument-specific/topic knowledge that they’re able to take “small” arguments and make them “big” ones based on their ability to extrapolate from what has been said. While this is impressive, I don’t think it’s a necessarily productive standard to hold judges to, and I believe that it is an expectation that is often fulfilled at the expense of valuable clash. Personally, I can guarantee you that what I spend my time reading and writing about has nothing to do with what you’re saying in a given debate, and the way I’m used to thinking outside of debate looks very different from what debate requires. Don’t assume I am familiar with with your argument(s). Don’t assume I’m going to read a card you’ve read and reconstitute your 1AR sentence/little word cluster. I will absolutely tell you after a debate that I missed an argument if it was underdeveloped, in earnest, and not feel bad about it. I’m sure you can avoid this from happening—I believe in you.

Now I'm just going to give my opinions on things that I always scroll down to when reading people's paradigms:

Topicality: It's in the neg's interest to explain clearly why the dynamics of the topic mean I should err neg on limits, and/or why debatability outweighs aff offense. Absent that kind of common-sense impact framing deciding between a limited neg-leaning topic and a relatively unlimited aff-leaning topic is too intervention-y for my comfort. I see reasonability as a schema through which to evaluate competing interpretations, not an exclusive paradigm. I can be convinced to apply reasonability in an alternative fashion, but I am unconvinced by "arguments" that use reasonability as a stand-in for impact comparison (do not repeat that you are reasonable without explanation in the hopes that my gut-approach to the topic includes your aff). These are debates that I would prefer be had at slower speeds more conducive to me being able to flow complete arguments instead of excessively shallow shorthand (possibly to your detriment).

Theory: I'm open to anything but my threshold for voting aff on delay cps bad is quite different from my threshold for voting aff on vague alternatives bad. If you're negative and reading something that is obviously pushing it it would be helpful for you to have arguments as to why reading your horribly unfair argument is distinct from every other time said horribly unfair argument has been read or is warranted by the topic/specific affirmative. See above note about speed.

Condo: I don't care but see above.

DAs: I believe there can be zero risk of one. Having a diversity of arguments does not have to and shouldn't trade off with smart framing arguments. Spending time winning a single damning argument with certainty is more helpful to me than reading a block your 1A wrote that extends every piece of UQ/Link/Impact ev in the debate. "Link determines direction of uniqueness" is generally more intuitive to me than the inverse.

Ks: If you read it one off I understand if your speeches don't reflect standard practice procedural organization and think it's in your interest to mix things up. I'll flow straight down. If you're affirmative in one of these debates it's your job to use that to your advantage and reconstruct things for me.

Framework: I often vote for non-topical affirmatives in part because framework debates are unnecessarily complicated. Simplifying things will substantially increase your chances of winning a ballot. For the neg this means picking an impact in the 2NR; fairness is one and is often (in my opinion) a better 2NR choice than decision-making/delib (explanation of which tends to be very nebulous and vulnerable to aff link/impact turns). If you go for an education impact, explain why your interp/model solves it or just explain why the aff precludes it. It doesn't take much to convince me that you should get topic education as an impact turn against affs that are explicitly anti-topical, but outside of that context this will require work for me. I say that fairness is often a better option because I generally believe that fairness is required for debate to have internal consistency/meaning, and teams whose strategy on T line up with that will put themselves in a good position in debates that I am judging. As explained above, I am partial to fairness/competitive equity impacts and so it is in the aff's interest to explain why they produce/justify reasonably fair debates/affirmatives OR spend a lot of time impact turning fairness instead of repeating that it's infinitely regressive/doesn't have a brightline/is just an internal link to education/shadow extending another sentence-long 2AC arg. Please don’t drop 100 DAs to framework in the 2AC which are largely the same few arguments with some flashy titles. This having been said, if you have a few core impact turns that you can tease out a lot of vertical depth from/craft an ultimate strategy around, using consistent language to refer to them distinctly is good.

These statements represent my feelings and quite likely my proclivities in judging; they do not, however, represent any hardline stance that I will take regardless of the context supplied by a debate. I flow a lot and will use it more than anything else to make a decision if I am judging you.

- Austin xoxo

I am looking for topicality does the thesis of the affirmative really meet the standards of debate. I also look and see what evidence is being used and if it used effectively and not just some random piece of evidence that is biased. You see their is the subjective and objective facts in each debate. I also look at see when you quote evidence is up to date and plausible to support your thesis. I expect language to be respectful to each other if you are aff or neg. I do not like to use profanity in this educational setting. Do you use your time wisely? Does someone leave two or three minutes left in a rebuttal if so why? Doing crossfire do you answer questions properly or ask probing questions to help you win the debate. I value good speakers and good flow.

Hello! I'm a judge for Whitman High School. I'm a parent of a debater, I don’t have experience in judging I but have received judge training from my school.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, if you explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded. I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

Contact
Email is andrew.torrez@gmail.com for the email chain.

NEW for TOCs (4/19/2022)

I did not judge much during 2021-22; I have 10 rounds on the Jan/Feb topic and three are from outrounds. In those rounds, I voted Aff 5 times (50%), and in out-rounds I voted Aff once (33%). I sat once (Octos @ Golden Desert). I've been through this paradigm recently and it reflects my current judging preferences.

2020-2021 Summary

I judged 60 rounds at last year at 13 different TOC bid-distributing tournaments. In prelims, I voted Aff 24 of 53 rounds (45.2%). In out-rounds I voted Aff 1/7 (14%) (Oof.) I did not sit out on a panel last year (Stanford, Emory, Big Lex, College Prep, Glenbrooks, Grapevine outrounds).

How To Pref Me:

LARP 1 - I'm a LARP hack. I want good, specific topic lit. Longer cards >>>>> more cards.

Ks - 2/3 - treat me like a college policy judge on these; I want a thorough explanation of what the world of the neg looks like in the 1N. You're solid running Cap, Fem, Set Col, Securitization, most post-fiat stuff. Specific links to the 1AC are key. Update: If you want me to vote pre-fiat, the K needs an alt; I will buy a floating PIK as essentially a DA but I'm highly likely to allow new 2AR weighing.

Theory - 2/3 - My threshold for voting is genuine abuse, and I'd prefer to see that in terms of models of debate. I will listen to even frivolous theory arguments but my threshold for answers is very, very low. I vote on RVIs more than most judges. I will vote on Nebel T.

Phil - 2/3 - Happy to evaluate your NCs. The status of most LD phil debate right now is not great - it tends to be a lot of blippy spikes, and I'm definitely on team "give me new 2AR responses on anything extended into the 2N," see tricks below.

Performance/Non-T Affs: 3 - I'm open, and I've enjoyed some of these cases but you probably don't want to pref me high if this is your jam. If you run T/Framework on the neg, I'm likely a very good judge for you.

Lay - 4 - I really love lay debate and can appreciate when it's done well, but I'm tab enough that you're almost certainly better off taking some random parent judge. Note: if you're a circuit debater hitting a lay debater and you adapt to them (i.e., no spreading, no theory args, just run your larp case) and win, I will reward you with a 30. Note: if you're an insecure circuit debater worried you're going to lose to a lay debater and you don't adapt to them, I'll just judge the round normally. If you're the lay debater, be smart in the round.

Tricks - 5 - The most I can say is that I will listen. I voted for Nate Krueger all the time, but he was kind of amazing at trix. My threshold for answers here is very, very low.

Stuff I don't like

Tricks and blippy one-line extensions that foreclose on your opponent's offense.

I'm sticking with 2020's "don't be squirrelly." That means: don't pretend you don't know what an a priori is in CX, don't hide spikes, don't lie about stuff you didn't extend, don't "explain" your crazy-ass Baudrilliard K with 3 minutes of nonsense in CX and then all of a sudden tell a straightforward story in the 2N, don't lie about your super-vague "I'm whole rez!" methods to exclude all clash in the 1AR, etc. Don't be squirrelly!

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

Longer stuff if you've got time:

Speed

UPDATED - Particularly online, I can no longer handle your top, top speed; it just becomes a kind of hazy whine in my headphones. Call me a 6 or 7 out of 10. Slow WAY down for tags and analyticals, particularly in rebuttals and especially if it's not on your speech doc. If you're spreading prewritten analyticals, send those with your speech doc to me and to your opponent. I'll clear you if I have to.

Evidence

Like I said, long cards >>>> more cards. Don't power-tag. I love love love when debaters re-cut their opponent's evidence in the next speech to show that it was power/mistagged - that has to be read, not inserted.

Nebel T

I think Nebel is correct, but this winds up being a lot more nuanced in the context of an LD round. Yes, semantics outweigh pragmatics on interpretation, but pragmatics control when we're talking voters/remedy. Here's a real-world example of how that played out. So, I agree with Nebel in the abstract that it's kind of silly that on a topic like "RT: States ought to ban their nuclear arsenals," the most common 1AC was Indo-Pak because that's literally not at all what the topic committee wanted you to debate. That being said, I don't think I ever voted for T on the nukes topic against spec affs because the 1AR answer of "come on, there are only 7 nuclear nations, if you're not prepared for Indo-Pak, you haven't done enough research" was probably sufficient. On the other hand, if your plan was to ban landmines in Myanmar as a spec for "states ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," then yes I voted for Nebel T every time. The Niemi "indict" is crap and we all know it.

On Embedded Clash

I find that I'm evaluating a lot of embedded clash, especially in late outrounds. Here are my thoughts on that: (a) the best thing you can do is give me a real OV that explains the layers; (b) in the absence of strong ink on the flow, I'm open to applying arguments from one sheet to another, even if the overall sheet is a kick; (c) I'm not likely to credit a single-line blip extension as decisive when there are 130 lines on my flow; (d) you can weigh new in the 2N, but don't make new substantive arguments; and (e) I'm strongly disinclined against 1AR theory that basically forces new 2N/2AR responses unless you have a very strong abuse story.

1AR Theory

I'm open, but from a practical perspective, I think you really need to be winning your abuse story since 1AR theory pretty much requires judge intervention since the 2N CIs will be new and the 2AR will be asking me subjectively to evaluate whether they're "good enough." IOW, my threshold for 2N answers is pretty low.

Ks

In terms of my familiarity and preferences: give me post-fiat, topic-specific Ks like cap and set col over incomprehensible generics like Weheliye, Baudrilliard, D&G, etc.. That being said, you do you -- for example, I think the fem killjoy K is 100% true.

Also: chances are virtually 100% that I'm not at all familiar with your literature, and it seems (to me, anyway) that a lot of judges are giving K debaters waaaaaay too much credit for warrants in the underlying lit that are not read/explained in round. I'm not going to do that. This means that if you're exclusively a K-debater, you probably want to pref me lower, to be honest. Be explicit about whether your K is pre- or post-fiat. K vs. K rounds need to be clear about uplayering and internal links if on the same layer.

Disclosure Theory

Update - particularly at TOCs, I think it is important to have good disclosure practices; you all are the debaters that the rest of the community is trying to emulate. Open-sourcing with highlighted cards is the minimum of what I consider "good." I am not a fan of running friv disclo theory against a debater whose practices are, at minimum, "good." I will happily pull the trigger on an RVI on disclo if you've run something appallingly stupid like "must disclose the precise tournament name" against a debater with "good" disclosure practices.

"Don't be shady" applies here, too - don't misdisclose, don't waste your opponent's time before the round and then drop a doc 4 minutes before the round begins, etc.

I will listen to "new 1ACs bad" theory.

Defaults

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue, but in the absence of argumentation:

• T > K
• T and Theory are on the same layer; Metatheory uplayers
• Reasonability over competing interps if not specified
• No RVIs (my threshold for warranting this is low, 'I get RVIs' suffices)
• Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
• Presume NEG
• Affirming is harder because duh, 1AR
• Neg gets 1 Condo advocacy
• PICs must be uncondo
• Weigh case against K

Speaks

I default to a 28.7-ish. I give 30s whenever the debater a) doesn't make any obvious technical or analytical mistakes and b) does at least one really cool/clever analytical thing, so, you know, reasonably often. Oh, I also give 30s when a tech-heavy debater adapts out of courtesy to a lay opponent. The only thing that will get me to tank your speaks is if you're bullying/obnoxious/abusive in the round.

IF YOU STILL DON'T KNOW, ASK! I'm happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before the round. I love LD, and I try to make it so that debaters enjoy debating in front of me.

Background:

Currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I have experience with APDA and I used to compete in the PF national circuit under Thomas S. Wootton High School.

TLDR: I flow. I like it when teams interact with their opponents' args. Warrant and impact things out. DO the work and you are more likely to get my ballot.

Preferences:

1. Speed:

I can handle 800-word cases but if you plan on going faster, don't expect my flow to be perfect unless you provided a speech doc. If you plan on spreading, please provide speech docs to everyone.

2. Extensions:

Everything in final focus should be in summary if you want me to evaluate it. The only exception to this is the 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense in summary. I'm not a big fan of new responses in 2nd summary. If you make new responses and your opponents call you out for it, there's a big chance I won't give it full weight.

Also, don't just extend card names. Extend the warrants.

3. Evidence:

Make it clear in speech if you want me to call a card. I will drop cards that I feel are misconstrued from the flow.

4. Cross:

I generally don't flow cross. If you get any concessions out of your opponents during this time please point it out in speech.

5. K's:

Not very familiar with them. I'm also very skeptical about whether they should be used in PF or not. I would advise not running them unless you can explain it really well.

6. Theory:

I'm more familiar with theory but I will only vote off it if something was actually abusive. I'm more receptive to things like condo bad but not such much to things like disclosure theory. Like K's, you need to explain this well if you want me to vote on this.

What I want to see:

1. Extend Impacts:

It is hard to evaluate an argument if the impacts are not extended. Don't make me do work for you.

2. Weighing:

The less weighing that is done the more I have to evaluate the importance of impacts based on my own beliefs. Tell me why your impacts matter more. Things like magnitude, scope, time frame, urgency, uniqueness, clarity of link, etc are all very helpful (although don't just use them as buzzwords actually explain to me how they apply).

3. Signpost:

Please be clear on where you are on the flow. A roadmap also helps especially if you're going to be reading overviews or starting with frontlines in rebuttal.

4. Clash:

Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Otherwise, I will have to intervene to resolve debates which will result in a decision you are probably unhappy with.

5. Warrants:

Provide clear reasoning for your arguments. I am more inclined to buy an argument the better warranted it is.

How I tend to vote:

I tend to find myself voting more on probability/link level when I find no distinguishable difference in the impacts.

I'm more inclined to vote for a team that has a stronger link story that is well warranted and/or has done more work to frontline responses on the link.

I also tend to lean towards teams that engage with their opponents' arguments. I hate it when teams extend through ink. Even if your opponents are being nonresponsive, still explain to me why those arguments are nonresponsive.

I only vote off of risk of offense as a last resort in scenarios in which both team's links get super muddled.

I generally evaluate the round by going in order of highest impact args to lowest and asking myself if I feel comfortable voting there or not. I usually don't feel comfortable voting on certain args if there are very glaring responses that you dropped/did not frontline.

Misc:

I tend to be more tech > truth.

I also default to util unless you provide a different way of weighing that is well warranted.

Speaker points will be based on how well you debated rather than how pretty you spoke.

Please don't be rude or offensive.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I am a lay, parent judge. Here's what you need to know:

1. My background is in Statistics. This means that I appreciate rigor, and I don't like when studies are misconstrued.

2. The surest path to my ballot is speaking clearly and explaining your argument well. I should be able to easily explain why you won the round. I suggest that you start and end your final speech by providing an overview to the round.

3. Stick to the topic. I am not familiar with "Kritiks", Policy-style DAs/CPs, or philosophy. Not sure if I'll understand something? Err against running it.

4. Do not assume that I understand jargon. "Framework", "contention", etc. are fine. If you use words like "practical reason" or "ontology," be ready to explain the terms.

5. Please don't be rude, and please time yourselves/each other.

i look forward to judging you!