I debated for Valley High School and I'm a first-year at Yale. I qualified to NSDA Nationals in Policy and the TOC in LD. 

Email: alyssa.makena2@gmail.com

Pronouns: s/h/h

TLDR

Speed is okay. I'll say "clear" if necessary. Everything you run will probably be fine, as long as it's not discriminatory.

Give trigger warnings. 

Don't misgender your opponent. 

Preferences

K - 1

Performance - 1

Topicality - 1

Phil - 2

LARP - 3

Theory - 4

Tricks - 5 

Defaults

RVIs over No RVIs

Tech > truth, but could be convinced otherwise in a performance debate.

TLDR

K's

I love topical and non-topical K's but specifically identity K's if you read a Cap K or a Security K in front of me I'll understand it so theres no big issue. I'm mostly familiar with Afro-Pess, Afro-Futurism, Black Fem, Killjoy, etc. I don't mind overviews but you need to LBL. I vote on the ROB and ALT analysis. 

K-AFFS

Read them. I am a big fan of K-AFFs. You need to prove why I should prefer your model of debate over your opponents and warrant it. But I think there is a line in which it gets too regressive so just try to make it authentic and interesting.

Performances

I'm most familiar with this style of debate. I don't care how out there the performance is but please don't try to make the round into some joke. If you have a truth claim that your impacting as a round-winning argument please 2-3 point and warrant it. 

Phil

I'm very familiar with this type of debate, I love NC/AC debates. I'll vote on pretty much anything. If your reading Phil please be strategic, I think it's a basic skill to ensure good clash in the round. 

- I'm a big fan of hijacks, root cause, meta-ethical claims, etc

Truth Testing

- If you're going to read truth testing, read it. I think it's an underrated strat.

LARP

- I vote on the impact calc debate. 

- Don't pref me high if you're gonna go for a heavy larp debate because i probably won't be the best judge.

THEORY/T

Topicality

I think T is both strategic and necessary at times which means I will vote for it but I still need the debaters to do the work even if the violation is true. I like it when debaters make a distinction between procedural and structural fairness. Set a model of the debate. Collapse. Try to engage with the AFF past Topicality.

Theory

- Competing Interps>Reasonability, but I can be swayed either way to be honest.

- RVIs>No RVIs

- I don't like friv theory but that doesn't mean i wont evaluate it, but tbh I probably will not be compelled to vote for it.

- Not a big fan of disclosure theory debates in general.

TRICKS

- Not a big fan so probably don't go for them in front of me.

add me to the email chain pls. my email is ud36445@wdmcs.org.

argument strat: pls don't read a priors or tricks - i won't vote on them due to specific tournament rules other than that, read what you want and understand. i'll only be able to understand what you mean if you understand it. reading stuff that you aren't comfortable with will possibly make it awkward for you in cross ex and it'll make it harder for me to make a clear decision. the better you articulate your arguments, the easier it will be for me to vote you up - and that's always nice :)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that'll definitely affect your speaks negatively and make it extremely hard for you to win (really just please don't say that kinda stuff). also realize that confidence does not equal rudeness. it's great to be confident but try to do it in a way that isn't rude to your opponents (some level of aggression is obviously okay though to make sure you aren't taken advantage of lol)

at the end of the round what will make it easier for me to vote for you!

-explain why your impacts come before your opponents (good impact calc is often underused in novice debate)

-do your best to answer specific arguments and explain why your responses are better (line by line is always good for this)

-be nice (being rude will make me not want to listen to your arguments - even if they're good)

okay now have fun!!

Hi all – I'm Connor. I did LD at West Des Moines Valley for three years (did alright on the national circuit, reached the semifinals at Iowa's state tournament). I haven't debated since 2021, so please assume I have no knowledge of common arguments on the current topic. Please put me on the email chain: cf45649@wdmcs.org

I'm not the best at flowing, so please slow down on dense analytics and pause in-between short numbered arguments. I'll tell you to slow/clear a couple of times but if I miss an argument because I didn't hear it I will not vote on it.

TLDR:

Phil - 1

Pomo/cap K - 2

Identity K - 3

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

LARP - 4

Defaults:

Epistemic confidence

DTD

Yes RVIs

Competing interps

Truth testing

Presumption affirms

Permissibility negates

More in-depth:

Phil: My favorite kind of debate. Don't assume I know what your author is saying (if it's obscure I probably don't). I really enjoy good phil debates especially strategic hijacks and turns. I'm familiar with Rawls, Kant, pragmatism, etc (whatever Valley is reading). I generally dislike hiding tricks in your framework since that usually comes off as a cheap shot but you do you.

Kritiks: I didn't read Ks until my sophomore year but since I've started I enjoy them. I'm most familiar with cap / semiocap but I'm open to other Ks as well. Please make sure to explain your theory of power and have a way to filter impacts under that theory of power. You don't always need to go for the alt - if you're winning your ROB and links as DAs that can sometimes be a better strategy than going for an alt as that can get really messy sometimes. K affs are fine - I'm quite receptive to T framework against these cases so maybe tangentially defending the topic would be a good move. Side note: I won't pick you up if you read a kritik that makes claims on behalf of a social group you're not a part of.

Tricks: When done well, tricks can be made interesting and fun to judge. When done poorly, I really dislike tricks debates. I will vote on a conceded claim but my threshold for responding to low-effort arguments is at the floor. If I pick you up on the resolved a priori you will not be happy with your speaks. If you read fun, interesting, or new tricks you and I will both be much happier.

Theory: I like theory. I don't like 5 shells in the 1N. Frivolous theory is fine but my threshold for responses is very low. Please go slower when reading your shells, especially if they're dense. Please weight between voters, standards, etc. Often, theory seems to be two ships passing in the night so please explain why your shell outweighs, comes first, etc.

LARP: To be honest, this is my least favorite type of debate to judge. I don't have a lot of experience LARPing and even less experience judging these rounds. I enjoy LARP v Phil rounds, especially when there are dense interactions between util and whatever the other framework is. I generally dislike LARP v LARP rounds. I will still evaluate the round to the best of my abilities but please do something fun with util or have a unique CP.

Have fun!

Hello! I debated at WDM Valley for 5 years and graduated in 2020.

Email: lauren7717@gmail.com

As a debater, I debated framework and theory the most, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive.

Some notes:

1) I would say my least favorite type of debate to judge is LARP v LARP. Don't not read LARP because of this if that's what you want to do, but if you find that the round is becoming very LARP-dense and you can figure out a way to make it less so, it'll probably be in your best interest.

2) On that note: read tricks with discretion. If you find yourself asking "is this tricks aff too much?", then the answer is yes and I would appreciate if you didn't read it. Same thing goes for paradoxes. If you're going for a trick, explain it and please don't just assume that I know what it means. I probably do, but I also hate voting on blippy, unwarranted tricks.

3) You should read some kind of a framing mechanism and link offense back to it.

4) I'm good with whatever speed you want, but we're online at the moment so maybe consider going 85% of your regular speed.

5) I like it when rebuttals aren't read off of a doc.

6) If you think that something is an independent voter, it probably isn't. If you want to change that, warrant it! Impact it! As I said above, however, I am most comfortable voting on arguments that link back to a framing mechanism. Independent voters don't, and are thus probably not something you should depend on.

7) As long as you explain your arguments well (whatever they may be), you're probably good. You'll be even better off if you a treat your opponent nicely :)

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

University of Iowa | 26'

Valley High School | 22'

Update for Millard North: I competed for Valley for around two and a half years before stopping during online debate. I was familiar with most types of arguments, but am certainly a bit rusty and out of the scene. I'm not familiar with what arguments are within the meta, however still willing to vote on anything as long as its explained and warranted. Please err on the side of over explanation and around 75-80% speed.

Here's my paradigm:

email for chain: tknudsen77@gmail.com

General:

Tech > Truth

Willing to vote on just about anything as long as there is a warrant, but please explain your arguments and don't assume I know what you are reading. I will not be voting on anything I don't understand.

As a debater I had the most experience in framework, theory, and tricks. (so do with that what you will)

I will not vote on any argument that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Defaults: can easily be changed.

Drop the Debater

Competing Interps

No RVI's

Fairness and Education are voters

Presumption Affirms

ROB is Truth Testing

Specifics:

Theory:

Defaults are above

Default Layering: 1AR theory, T, 1nc theory

Prefer shell over paragraph theory, however both are fine.

I really enjoy a good theory debate, but bad theory debates can be the worst to watch

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh - this is especially important in resolving messy theory debates

You can read any theory shell, frivolous or not, but I have a lower threshold for responses for friv theory

Don't like disclosure theory - more often than not I am on the defensive end of this. If you feel like you have to read this please provide screenshots, but my threshold for responses are lower than most shells.

I think 1ar theory can be very strategic however it is often underutilized

I think reasonability is also underutilized - consider going for it but please provide a brightline.

Topicality:

Fine for this - don't go for it as often as theory but feel free to read it.

I have gone for Nebel T, T - fwk, T - plural, and T - eliminate.

If you are going for it the 2n - please go for it for the majority of the 2n and win why it comes first.

Policy:

Probably not your ideal judge for dense Larp debates

I read policy style arguments on the neg a lot. Generally one or two policy offs against a policy aff however I generally go for theory or an NC in 2n.

I like built-in turns case args against non-util frameworks and think they're strategic

DA's are good - don't know anyone who has an issue with these

CP's are fine but please explain their interactions with the affirmative (why it solves the aff and avoids the DA)

I won't read cards unless I am instructed to

1ar theory should probably be read against CP's - especially cheaty CP's (what those consist of is left up to the debaters)

Tricks:

I love a good trick and am willing to vote on these, but please win Truth Testing.

These debaters can also become very messy so please don't go for every single trick you read. Please layer and weigh to make these debates resolvable.

Willing to vote on any trick I understand, however I might not understand every super complex tricks - ask before the round for clarification.

Clever aprioris or tricks are really fun to watch and will result in good speaks, but stale overused ones can become boring. Still willing to vote for them

A lot of these arguments are ridiculous so just point out why - failing to do so can be devastating.

Going for these arguments poorly will result in lower speaks - but doing so well will result in very high speaks

Please slow down on skep triggers or other blips. Also, please be open in cx I find "what's an apriori?" very annoying.

Phil:

I go for Phil a lot and enjoy a nuanced Phil debate.

A well-warranted syllogism is really fun to watch, but okay with independent preclusion arguments.

Don't understand how to evaluate the round under epistemic modesty - you should provide a formula for evaluation if you want me to use this. I will default to epistemic confidence.

Ask before the round for familiarity - will most likely be able to follow your framework if it warranted and explained well

I think metaethics are very strategic to filter what frameworks are relevant.

Clever framework hijacks are awesome and underutilized.

NC/AC strats are the best strat and if done well you will receive high speaks

K's:

These debates are not my favorite. I don't understand a majority of the literature, but know the basics of some. If you want to ask for familiarity before the round that would probably be smart. If you don't and I have no idea what your reading is, you will probably not be happy with my decision.

Please err on the side of over-explanation.

I feel like a lot of kritiks are just random buzzwords thrown together, specifically high theory. But feel like I can somewhat evaluate identity K's okay.

Would prefer a LBL approach rather than long overviews

I don't think going for the alt is necessary and it oftentimes is more strategic not to. Going for the K as a turn or DA to case is strategic.

I don't really understand how to evaluate many K tricks like floating PIK's but please be open about them in CX

I think reading theory and winning theory first is generally a good strat.

Winning your ROB is generally a must.

Misc:

"Independent voters are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive." - Conal Thomas Mcginnis

Things like speech times are non negotiable

Compiling a doc is prep, but emailing is not

Make the debate fun for yourself - the ballot is yours I am just here to fill it out.

hello, I'm Ondrea (she/her/hers) and I am a freshman at the University of Iowa. I debated policy at West Des Moines Valley.

Put me on the email chain. ondrealidebate@gmail.com

Spreading is fine with me but if you aren't clear, you should probably just slow down.

Tag team cx is fine.

zoom: do not start if my camera is not turned on. I am NOT there.

Read whatever you want, as long as what you say isn't xenophobic, racist, sexist, or homophobic etc. If that's the case, I promise you will receive L20.

Michael Meng (He/Him/His)

mengmichael100@gmail.com

I'll vote on anything... but heres my list on familiarity

Pref Scale

Phil: 1-2 (depends how dense, kant / pettit, hobbes, contracts, sentiments, etc are all 1's)

K (idpol, reps, generics): 2

K (high theory): 5

Substantive Tricks: 1-2

bad tricks*: 3-4

T/Theory**: 2

LARP: 3/5 (3 for ITs + Process CPs, 5 for straight policy adv/da)

Trad - plz strike me

*even though I dislike bad tricks (eval after, no aff/neg analytics, etc), you still have to respond to it, saying "this is friv" isnt responsive, its much better to just group most of these bc lots of em have the same flex warrant

**You should probably disclose, I'll vote on disclosure but the more friv the less i take it seriously eg. disclose who won the round in rr

Presume (if NONE OF THESE ARE CONTESTED):

DTD on T and Theory

No RVI's

Epistemic Confidence

Truth Testing

Competing Interps

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

LESS IMPORTANT STUFF / SPEAKS

If you follow my TikTok and ss it and put it in the doc ill boost speaks by 0.5 my @ is local.sh(i)tposter * without the () bc tab told me to take a bad word out :c

Buy me boba = 30

Be nice to ur opponents, debate should be fun

If u drop an abhorrent impact turn I will vote on it... the threshold for response is literally just sneezing on it and if u can't respond u deserve to lose lmao, however if I do have to vote on this the winner gets W20

Other than that speaks are up to me, if you can beat me in a game of clash royale before the round (come early) you get 30, but if u lose -2 speaks of what I would've given u

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

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes