Email - Maxinekyadams364@gmail.com

Prefs

1 - k/performance****, traditional

2 - theory

4 - larp

no tricks.

Important

-i am very flow centric (flow cross ex even)- tech matters a lot

-impacts are important to me. please give me framing and comparison, tell me the story of your impacts and how they outweigh.

-case debate - be very clear when you're cross applying arguments to the case flow - 2nr and 2ar must go to the case page and isolate what you're winning

-FW - ill vote on it if you win it.

More thoughts

- please collapse by the 2n/2a and use judge instruction.

- good analytics > bad cards

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

I debated Lincoln Douglas in my high school forensics team about 10 years ago and have judged periodically the past few years. I prefer relatively traditional style of debate, but won't mind if you run something more non-conventional. Speed is fine as long as you are understandable and you are doing it for a purpose that makes sense. Ultimately, you must show me how your value structure is what we must look to and how your side better upholds that value. When using cards to further your arguments, please have make your claim, warrant and impact explicit. Please remember to be courteous and professional to each other.

Roadmaps and signposting are important to help me organize your argumentation and not having them will only hurt my ability to follow your points.

I despise spreading, and you can expect me to take points off if you spread all of your arguments. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I will not flow your arguments. Branching off of this, If a contention has 7 subpoints, I'll miss two or three in the middle. Focus on delivering quality arguments and analysis over simple quantity.

Eye contact and actual persuasion are critical to speaker points and winning the debate. If you never look up from your notes or computer, then to me you're no better a public speaker than a audiobook. Furthermore, evidence is not an argument in it of itself. Evidence should SUPPORT an argument. Don't just read me a statistic and expect me to make links for you. Tell me about why the evidence matters and the impact it has on the round.

To me, rebuttal is where debates are won or lost. If you can refute an opponents argument itself (rather than just clashing statistics) that will earn you major points. Crossfires should be used to tear down the logic of an opponents argument or undermine their evidence/examples. Don't just use CX as a opportunity to re-explain your own case in the form of questions.

Finally, attacking evidence is necessary but not sufficient to win an argument. Focus on the core of the argument itself, rather than trying to peel it apart card by card. It is not only stronger from a rhetorical point of view, but easier to flow.

Civility during your rounds is very important. Rudeness and disrespecting your opponent is the easiest way to lose points. Also, don't lie about evidence. I don't want to have to request your cards, but I will if I feel there has been any form of manipulation or other dishonesty.

I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge that prefers philosophical arguments. I love to see value clash and I always prefer a debater that gives clear and concise voting issues at the end of the round. Spreading is okay as long as I can understand you but my preference is to hear a few thoroughly explained arguments over a high quantity of half explained arguments. I am a judge that flows so please give me sign posts so I can keep track of where you are (i.e. "in my opponent's contention one..").

No spreading please. I like a good value debate and judge heavily on links to framework. Impacts and weighing are important to me. And be nice to each other.

I have coached high school debate for twenty-seven years. If you are a progressive (role of the ballot, no value structure, and kritiks) LD debater then please strike me.

Things I like: value clash, signposting, effective time allocation, impact calculus, and rebuttals that focus on analytical comparisons of the arguments (and evidence) rather that repeating your claims or more cards.

Hello, My Name is Brigido Cruz, I like for the competitor be clear and loud as I may miss something, just speak up a bit. But for the most part I prefer you use the format that is comfortable with you. Please introduce yourself before speeches. And NO RUDENESS PLEASE, Let's be respectful and have a good debate.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.

2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.

FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.

*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important

** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years

*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.

Johnny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he's got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off
Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doing it again
You better duck down the alley way
Lookin' for a new friend
A man in the coonskin cap, in the pig pen
Wants eleven dollar bills, you only got ten Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin' that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone's tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A. Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't tie no bows
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows Oh, get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Hang bail, hard to tell
If anything is goin' to sell
Try hard, get barred
Get back, write braille
Get jailed, jump bail
Join the army, if you fail
Look out kid
You're gonna get hit
But losers, cheaters
Six-time users
Hang around the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool
Lookin' for a new fool
Don't follow leaders, watch the parkin' meters Oh, get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance
Learn to dance, get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don't wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don't want to be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don't work
'Cause the vandals took the handles

Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.

General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.

Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.

Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.

Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.

Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.

Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.

Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.

K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.

Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.

***Include me in your email chain.*** callieham479@gmail.com

It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.

Public Forum

To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Policy - I haven't coached or judged CX since 2016...but just in case...

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?

Theory/Framework: Don't love it, but sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)

(General paradigm at the top, event-specific paradigms listed in [brackets]. If you're here for congress/speech/interp scroll to the bottom.)

I judge from a blank slate. In other words, it is up to the competitors to make their arguments, prove their points, and weigh the impacts. I will vote for the side that wins on the flow no matter how good or how flawed I personally think those arguments are.

The only time I bring in outside knowledge to a debate round is for very basic facts. Example: if a debater says that the current U.S. president is Lebron James, then I know for a fact that this is wrong and any arguments based on this being true will be dropped from my flow. This is only for basic facts that I am 100% sure of and which should not be in dispute; if a fact is at all controversial, complicated, or I am not 100% sure, then I will leave it up to the debaters to hash it out and I will not judge based on my personal opinion.

You must tell me how to weigh/decide the round, then you must tell me why you win under that decision framework. The jargon I'm using here is very LD but as a general concept it's true for PF too.

On warrants: if two opposing warrants contradict each other then I resolve the conflict based on warrant quality and relevance to the argument. I very much appreciate it when debaters go into detail about why a warrant should stand/fall to help resolve the conflict. If warrants contradict and neither comes out as superior then the arguments are a wash and I drop both from the flow.

On speed: I am fine with speed but my ear isn't as quick as it used to be, so please slow down for your tags and impacts so I can make sure we're on the same page. If this is an online tournament then please keep the speed to an absolute minimum because the audio distortion is a real problem. Please take this seriously.

[LD] The value framework is only important to me in terms of telling me how the round should be judged. I am very flexible when it comes to frameworks; all I care about is that the debaters' cases follow a logical structure and they explain why I should vote for their side. It's okay to appeal to your opponent's values, multiple values, or implicit values. You don't need to talk about "values" at all if you provide a clear mechanism for weighing the round.

[LD] Kritiks/theory cases are fine but you need some sort of offense. Even if you completely nullify your opponent's case you still need something on your side of the flow showing me why I should vote for your case/world/whatever. I do not believe in Affirmative burden in LD so if the round is a wash I do not automatically vote negative.

[LD] Special note on Utilitarianism: You must always link your arguments into the round's accepted framework, especially if it is your own framework. Util is no different. If you use Util as your VC you MUST provide a Util analysis at some point in the round. All Util frameworks boil down some concept of weighing net benefit and harm. Therefore to win the round you must explain exactly why your side gives the most benefit and/or least harm, and this means directly weighing your net benefit/harm against your opponent's net benefit/harm. If only one debater provides a Util calculus and the other does not then the one who does will probably win the round. I normally don't like giving such a specific paradigm but Util is very popular these days and I think it is very unfortunate how many rounds are decided entirely because someone uses Util and then never explains why they win under their own VC. If you have no Util calculus, you have no Util link.

[PF] I view each side as advocating for or against the position taken by the resolution, not on whether or not I "accept" the resolution or the pro/con case. This means that I do not give much weight to overly specific or unconventional interpretations of the resolution, and most theory/kritical arguments are limited to rebutting specific arguments. However I do not reject any arguments outright and I will listen to your justification for making that argument. I judge entirely based on whether analysis of the flow leads to advocacy for/against the resolution position; barring extreme circumstances I do not factor debate style into my RFD.

[PF] I do not flow cross examination. CX is for clarification and explanation so the debaters can hash out how their arguments interact with each other. There is zero benefit to being combative in CX because you cannot win or lose arguments during cross. I do still listen to CX though and what is said in cross can affect my understanding of the arguments made during the round.

CONGRESS: I primarily value good discussion. A good speech should 1) Have something useful to say, 2) Say it clearly, 3) Justify it with solid evidence and reasoning. Every speech should progress the discussion; no speech should merely repeat previously made arguments, even if you're giving a summary speech. Speeches early in a bill should provide new arguments. Speeches later in a bill should directly respond to arguments made by other senators. Speeches near the end of the bill should analyze/compare/weigh the arguments already made. Questions should similarly progress the discussion and try to reveal more about the speaker's position and arguments. I do not place much emphasis on how "congressional" your style is, however I view the goal of your speeches/questions to be promoting the public good via the role of a congressperson, and I will judge the quality of your speaking to the extent that it promotes/detracts from your advocacy for/against the bill.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying.Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation.

I prefer traditional LD and do not like spreading. Make sure to time yourself. I will not be flowing cross examination and make sure to be respectful towards your opponent. I am fine with off-time roadmapping. I place emphasis on the value clash and consider it to be one of the key drivers of the round.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University

3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic

Put me on the email chain: ian.mattson7@gmail.com

Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best

Good explanation is important

Fast is good when clear

Analytics are good (most of the time)

Theory is good kinda

Politics DA is meh

High theory is meh

2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order

K Affs can be good

FW is good

Education is a better impact than fairness

Debate is always educational and almost always good.

Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.

Theory

Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.

LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.

DA's

Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.

I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.

Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.

CP's

More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.

T

T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.

Some other thoughts:

Explain reasonability right please.

If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.

Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.

There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.

FW

Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.

FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm incapable of voting for you, even if you win every piece of offense to their interpretation. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.

K's

When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.

K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.

K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).

Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.

Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.

High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.

PS: I've read a bunch of stuff at this point. Don't skirt explanation because I may have read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.

Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.

Critical Affs

Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!

Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.

Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.

KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.

Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.

LD Specific

I strongly dislike trick/Phil affs but have zero problems actually voting for them if explained right. One line a priori arguments are probably bad but if there aren't any theoretical objections to them/they're dropped and the 1AR picks up on that it's probably a win. However, I am sympathetic to things like "Hey Ian, these arguments are silly and unfair to the negative" because they're probably true. Reading your own framing and then a theoretical objection to multiple a prioris/independent reasons to vote aff is more than likely your best bet against tricks.

Please extend the actual text of the aff into the 2AR. Please. I get you wanna talk about framework for 3 minutes but even if you win framework if you don't have an aff I can't vote for you.

Plans are fine in LD.

Final

Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.

Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.

You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If anyone has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just seem ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.

Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top

Debated LD from 2010-2013. Pretty much tab: Ks, speed, whatever else is fine. My only real ask for debaters is that you sign post everything in your speeches; please let me know where you are on the flow at all times. Overall though, I think debate should be fun and informative, so enjoy yourselves!

If you have any more specific questions before the round, please ask.

I was primarily a policy debater in high school. I competed at NFL and CFL nationals all four years. I have been judging policy and public forum primarily for the last 12 years. I have judged LD some as well. I understand the basic theory of each style, but I am not well versed in the intricacies of LD or PF as deeply as in policy. Clarity is paramount. If I don't understand what your argument is, then I can't give it much weight. Tell me what matters and why it matters more than whatever your opponent is slinging.

My name is Bill Nyberg, I am a parent judge. I have judged LD only.

Please go at a reasonable pace and make your arguments understandable.

My email is billnyberg@hotmail.com

email: aladekemi.omoregie@gmail.com

Add me to the chain.

I debated policy and public forum for Newark Science, I'm currently an attorney and I usually judge LD rounds. I don't really have time to read philosophy so please explain as much as you can to me.

I don't disclose speaks.

As far as the round goes:

Presumption: No presumption, I listen to both sides

K's: I prefer K debates, they are fun. Strictly topical debates are not fun. They are in fact, very boring. Please stop only running lay/traditional debate in front of me.

Speed: Don't spread.

Theory: I hate theory debates. I feel as though it wastes time during the round because you are essentially complaining about not having enough time to debate, when, what you could be doing, is debating. TO ME, theory is the lowest value argument that can be made.

Cross Examination: Can't believe I have to say this, but CX is binding; however, I don't flow CX

Miscellaneous: If you're racist, homophobic, ableist, or display any other kind of bigotry during the round, I don't have to vote for you.

My educational background consists of MS in Physics from Belarus State University and MS in Computing Sciences from Villanova University.

As someone with training in accurate sciences I appreciate well thought out and warranted arguments. I prefer quality over quantity in argumentation. And I especially enjoy listening to someone who can think of their feet.

I’m fine with you speaking fast, but make sure that all arguments are clear and make sure to emphasize your main points. I like it when you become involved in the debate, but make sure not to be offensive. Being aggressive is fine, and encouraged in most cases, however it should not facilitate hostility towards your opponents. I like humor and prefer entertaining cross-examinations.

Debated throughout high school; two-time Maine State Champion and representative to Nationals (2002 and 2004). I'm currently a Ph.D. student in the History of Science at Penn, and I am an award-winning oral storyteller.

A major thing I look for is CLEAR SPEAKING. If a student speed reads it is extremely difficult to follow the actual argument: even if they're a fast talker (and I'm one too!), I look for a debater who can clearly signpost their argument and not let everything get muddled together in a drone of speed read. The less a debater is glued to their screen while speaking, the better.

In terms of case, I look for a cohesive and compelling framework. I'm drawn to debaters whose contentions are in conversation with one another and connected through the value— not just three disconnected sub-arguments, but sub-arguments which strengthen each other and, collectively, exemplify the value. I love a bold case, love a creative case. As long as the framework is there, I'm willing to go along for a wild ride.

I want to see you clash on the SUBSTANCE. Nothing makes me sadder than when someone spends all their rebuttal time focusing on what specific sub-argument wasn't addressed, and therefore I should win the round instead of engaging meaningfully with the actual substance of their opponent's case. What I love about LD is that, at it's best, it provides a way for us to think philosophically and creatively about an issue— obsess less over pointing out all the things your opponent didn't do (trust me, I'm keeping flow and I know when stuff is dropped!) and more over the meat of the clash itself.

I care much more about how you use evidence than how you cite it. This may be a relic of me being a debater prior to the newer rules about how you need to reference/cite/use cards but (and I'm sure this is naughty!!) I sort of don't care. Or, I care but only insomuch as you're backing up your CLAIM, which is actually what I care about. So, connected to the point above, I don't want you to argue about citations as much as I want you to argue about claims.

Don't yell at me about what to do! I get the impulse to yell about how your opponent did XYZ and that means you win the round but honestly, chill. I'm keeping a flow chart, paying close attention, and it's my literal job to judge the round— you telling me that you won is far less effective than using that time to continue bodyslamming your opponent's argument, ya know? As they say in the writing world,"show, don't tell." That's wise here too: don't tell me you won, show me you won through the strength of your argumentation.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

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

If you are a progressive (role of the ballot, no value structure, and kritiks) LD debater then please strike me.

I debated LD in high school, and am currently a student at university. My preference is for debates that feature good linkage to value/value criterion, signposting, impact, and clash. Speed is fine as long as it's understandable and doesn't sacrifice clarity of the argument. Please don't be nitpicky about evidence - valid criticisms are fine, but it's not a good use of anyone's time to ask to see every card your opponent brings up.

I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That always is a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.

I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 8 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate.

I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate clarity and responding to as many of your opponent’s points as possible, and dislike spreading. Additionally, I am okay with fast, but not choking-like speed especially in the virtual format.

Hello everyone! My name is Peter Vouthas, I was an LD debater from 2016-2020 at Chaminade in NY, and now I'm studying Business and Political Economy at NYU. I went to out rounds at NSDAs three times, placed 9th in XDB, and went to CFLs once. I was a traditional debater and prefer traditional rounds. That being said, I did break at multiple circuit tournaments, so I know how most circuit stuff works. If you are running any circuit arguments, just be sure to explain them well and go slower than normal.

Pref Guide:

Traditional/Lay: 1

Policy: 1-2

K: 3

Phil: 4

T/Theory: 5

Performance/Tricks: Strike me

Add me to the email chain: peter.vouthas@stern.nyu.edu

Summary:

1. Please don't go full spread. I was mostly a lay debater. Faster than conversational is fine, but if I don't hear or understand an argument I won't vote off it.

2. Speaks are strategy and style. To get full speaks you have to speak clearly, use inflection, breathe normally, and sound interesting.

3. Don't read disclosure theory or performance. I'll give you a loss 27. I have a low threshold for responses to tricks and friv theory and don't really like those either.

4. Please stay topical.

5. Tech>truth.

Traditional/Lay/Policy: These are the arguments that I most frequently ran in high school. I think these rounds are the most fun and educational rounds in debate. I like full res, plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc., and lots of clash. Make sure to weigh and give me clear voters.

K: I understand how these work. If they are anything denser than like a simple cap k or fem k, make sure you're explaining what's going on well.

Phil: You should assume that I have basically no knowledge on any philosophy. I have surface level understanding of a lot of stuff, I've taken philosophy classes in college, but if it's anything more complex than Locke/Rawls, make sure you explain it well.

Theory/T: Kinda hard for me to judge because I lack experience with these arguments. Don't run them unless there is actual abuse.

Performance/Tricks: I really don't like these. Please don't read them.

Joke Cases: If your opponent agrees, feel free to run one. I'll probably bump your speaks

Voting History Spreadsheet: This spreadsheet shows my side bias and average speaks (local tournaments drag down my average, so circuit speaks are typically higher at around 28.5).

If you have any questions about my paradigm, your round, or your rfd feel free to email me!

LD: Make sure you keep to your value throughout your case. I like to see rounds that get into philosophy, not only empirical data. Ensure your arguments are logical and supported with evidence, but don't let the debate devolve into one statistic vs another.

PFD: Make sure your arguments are logical. Connect the dots. I want to hear why your evidence matters, and what the likely outcome of the resolution will be. I don't like debate that is definitions based or about a single source vs another. Look at the bigger picture.

General:

Do not be rude to your fellow competitors.

Make sure that whatever pace you are speaking at that you can be understood. I can keep up with a good amount, but obviously cannot judge something I can't hear.

I am not going to do the legwork for you, you need to convince me why you won the round.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.