Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

send the email chain to jonahgentleman@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jonah (he/him). I regularly competed in both LD and policy at Advanced Technologies Academy and now attend Rutgers University. My guiding philosophy when judging is that I will evaluate any argument, as long as it is properly warranted and does not make the round unsafe for anyone involved.

Policy

These are the rounds I am the most comfortable judging. I like 1NCs that spend a good bit of time on case and really engage with the aff (rehighlightings, smart analytics, things like that). I think impact turns are cool too. I think impact weighing is extremely important, and robust disad turns case explanations make me happy. I enjoy hearing smart advantage CPs. Nebel T is boring but if you read it I think going for limits offense is much smarter than semantics.

Kritiks/K Affs

I am probably the least comfortable judging these debates. I think policy vs. K debates can be cool, but they often feel overly confusing. I get really annoyed by super long 2NR overviews that don't make things any clearer. If I can understand what the K's thesis is, why the aff links, and why that's bad coming out of the debate - that's perfect. But I find that does not happen often. I have the most experience with cap, security, setcol, and queerpess, but anything beyond that might require more explanation than you're used to. For K affs, if I come out of the 2AR clearly understanding what your model of debate is and why that’s good, I will be very inclined to vote for you. Framework is probably the best strategy to go for in front of me, because K vs. K debates get very confusing quick.

Theory/Phil/Tricks

I'm all for it. I only ask for two things: make sure that your arguments are warranted and that you do weighing!! I notice 1AR theory debates become super hard to resolve when standards aren't responded to or weighed. Also it would be great if you go just a bit slower than usual because I am bad at flowing. I recently found out that I think phil debate is pretty cool. Feel free to read any philosopher you are comfortable with as long as you can explain it. I guess I'm fine with whatever tricky arguments you want to read BUT the sillier these args get the lower speaks you will get.

Traditional

I did a lot of traditional debate in high school am fine with judging it. I think that the value criterion is very important and should be very prevalent in every speech when it comes to weighing. Circuit competitors should be inclusive as possible to traditional debaters.

Public Forum

Adding this here because I occasionally judge this. Hopefully knowing that I have a policy background should be enough for you, but the two most important things to consider is that I evaluate rounds very technically and I won't listen to paraphrased evidence. Disclosure is also not really a norm yet in this event so I'm not very persuaded by related arguments.

Update for TOC Digital (12/2-12/4): I don't believe in sticky defense. Extend your arguments in every speech.

Speaker Points

I used to have a somewhat in-depth system here but I realize I really don't follow it. I think most rounds I judge I give speaks from 28.5 to 29. If I think you collapsed well and liked your strategy you'll get 29-29.5. If you are a super duper awesome debater you'll get above that, but it's somewhat rare for me.

Misc.

- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.

- I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

- I really really really don't like evaluating death good arguments.

- Misgendering is obviously very bad and if you do it repeatedly your speaks (and potentially my decision) will reflect that.

- It would be very cool if you slowed down on analytics, because I can't vote on something I didn't hear. This is compounded by my slightly below average flowing skills.

- If you couldn’t already tell, I lean tech over truth.

- If you are annoying in CX I will get annoyed.

- Accessibility is really important to me. Don’t bully novices and don’t be elitist toward traditional debaters.

- Accusations of clipping/violating ev ethics will stop the round. I think evidence is miscut if it is plagiarized, incorrectly cited (author/date), skips paragraphs, or starts or ends in the middle of a paragraph (where the skipped part of the text changes the meaning). I require a recording to verify clipping. If the accuser is correct, the other team loses with minimum speaks. If the accuser is wrong, they lose with minimum speaks.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

I'm Aidan Hubert, and I'm an incoming senior with two years of LD debate experience. I've only judged casual classroom debates and have very little actual judging debate, but I'll do the best I can. As for actual paradigms, it'll be a bit convoluted as I try to explain

first of all, I believe it's important to get the basic stuff out of the way. Racism, sexism, any obvious and intentional intolerance will not be tolerated. The same goes for obviously abusing your opponent. I'd be more than happy to mark down your opponent as the winner and give you minimum speak points. This sorta stuff should be obvious, and I hope I'd never need to do anything like that, but you can never be too sure.

Disclosure: having personally struggled with the LD Wiki I don't want to really see a lot of disclosure theories. If there's a genuine attempt ahead of time and nobody is purposefully trying to hide their case then I'm probably not going to like disclosure theory. Long story short, if you think that it's a major problem hindering the debate round, then run it, but there should be a pretty good reason.

Theory stuff: Honestly, I'm not the most knowledgeable about more advanced theory and the like. I won't stop you if you want to run it and I'll do my best to follow, but be aware I might not be the most knowledgeable on it.

Flowing: please make it easy for me to flow the round please. I'll do my best to flow everything but it's not impossible for me to miss something, especially if you spread or don't talk especially clear

Speed: be courteous. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do that. If I ask you to slow down, please please do.

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Conflicts: San Marino

Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year (2016-2020)

As of 3/13/2024: I have not been involved in debate since 2020. Most of my knowledge of debate has atrophied; if you plan on running technical arguments be prepared to explain them thoroughly.

Send me speech docs: j4ng.debate@gmail.com

discord: j4ng#0099

If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.

Speed is OK but don't exceed 350 WPM. I can't vote for a team if I cannot understand what they are saying. Spreading is not accessible and I prefer that everyone in the room can actively participate in the round :)

I ran generic, stock, LARP, and Ks in HS. If you are running anything else, I will do my best to evaluate them.

This is the paradigm that I wrote in 2021. It is wordy and extends into debate lore that I barely remember today. You can use it as general guidance. here

Feel free to ask any questions. I do not consider myself the most impartial judge, but I promise everyone that I will do my best to facilitate a fair and educational round.

Hi my name is Zoe Jones. I will be a senior at Austin High in the fall, 2020 permitting. I've done LD for two years now, before that i did a semester of congress followed by a semester of PF and i've done a few different individual events mainly exempt and OO.

For Judging LD:

I think debate is a space to argue the direct effects of a topic being implemented against the consequences of not having it.

Disclosure:

I understand the struggle that is the LD wiki, if you haven't disclosed there then so be it but make sure you get your speech doc to your opponent thirty minutes or more before the round starts or they can run disclosure theory on you. While i'd prefer the round to come down to effects of the resolution I will vote off of disclosure theory. When the aff shares the doc please send them back all the things you might possibly respond with (not the docs just the names of DAs and K and theories you might potentially run) This is just so they can be a little bit prepared and ready for the round. Please don't run something that is not on this list.

Trigger Warning:

Provide trigger warning for anything that might be triggering before round, please use common sense in this aspect. Debate is meant to be a safe space for all, if you fail to make it such the round will end early and I will report you to tab with an automatic loss. Also if you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in a round please let me know either privately messaging me or some other signal. Depending on the level of concern the round will either be terminated with an automatic win for the person who felt unsafe or both of you will receive a bye. If you take advantage of this and try to use it to win I guarantee you will regret it. This is for extreme cases only.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me again I prefer to follow along with the docs. If your opponent asks for a slower speed and you do not speak at a slower speed your speaks will most be lowered. In any speech but especially your rebuttals if you want something to get flowed slow down and say it in a very clear voice. I will flow off the doc as well but if you make a point that you really want to be flowed emphasis on it will definitely help.

Flowing:

I like to see the flow condense down to the major points of the round rather then contesting the things that hold no real grounds in the round. If there is an obviously conceded point hammer that in, but don't forget to bring it up in every speech you make. If you want something from Cross-X to be flowed make sure you say it in a speech because I will pay attention to Cross-X but I won't flow it. Sometimes flows get messy but proper signposting in and before your speeches will make it easier for me to make a concise and accurate ballot. Also a line by line in later speeches is very appreciated as it throughly attacks your opponents points and sets up the foundation of what you see as the major arguments of the round.

Preferences:

While I prefer morality arguments to theory and Kritiks debate is a space for debaters and not for judges and as such the debate should operate on a debaters terms. And as your judge I will accommodate to whatever style of debate you choose. While judge modification is a thing it should honestly be judges modifying to debaters because your job is already hard enough.

Theory:

Again I'm okay with any arguments you want to read. My theory is admittedly not the best but if I have to look stuff up after the round I will. But you should make everything you read understandable for everyone your opponent included. Please do not take advantage of something your opponent doesn't understand if they ask a question don't steamroll them or make it unnecessarily complicated. If your opponent doesn't understand something chances are your judge doesn't either. Because we aren't supposed to bring outside knowledge into the round making stuff understandable is crucial.

Kritiks:

Similar to theory, run them if you want but make it understandable and clear. Don't steamroll your opponent and clarify if they ask.

80,000 offs:

Don't read 80,000 offs. I know it's a strategy to swarm your opponent with so many things that they couldn't possibly accurately respond to all of them but its not cool. Especially when in the next speech you drop all but three of them and leave your opponent struggling to condense their flows. Basically I don't like any strategy that try's to force your opponent to flounder. And if you attempt one of these and your opponent is prepared and responds accurately then they're getting very high speaks.

Accidents:

People misspeak, accidents happen, all that fun stuff. If you say something wrong please clarify that within your speech time or during your prep time. I understand that the stress of a round can get to you and you can accidentally word something wrong or slip up over a point. This cannot be used to add an argument, get rid of an argument or anything along those lines. It is simply to reword a point that you may have tripped over because I don't want anxiety to be anyones downfall in debate. Confidence is key but confidence has to be gained through success.

Prep Time:

I'm fine with prep being open prep or closed prep. As long as both parties agree. So if you both are okay with open prep then go for it. Again I will not flow it but it can be useful for someone who needs clarification. Do not use that time to trip someone up, open prep is for clarifications not lines of questions, lines of questions are for Cross-X time. Also do not steal prep time, I know that is a widely known rule but it still happens all the time, your prep time ends when you're ready to send the doc out. You do not have to send the doc during prep time but if you take more then thirty seconds to send it after ending your prep time that is stealing prep and your speaks will be lowered. After the doc has been received check everyone is ready then begin your speech. Feel free to use other peoples prep time as well as you only have your 4 minutes but working while your opponent is prepping is good use of your time.

If you have any questions email me at coronacationtourney@gmail.com, yes I would like to be part of the email chain. Let's all have fun at this tournament okay? Anyways see y'all there.

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

hi, I toc qualled 2x and broke to octos in VLD, i earned two bids. I am comfortable evaluating any argument, and I'll give very high speaks if we can efficiently start and finish the round. Be respectful to each other and have fun

Hi, I'm Julia, but you can call me Jules or Jae. I use any/all pronouns so knock yourself out.

I've done debate for six going on seven years. I'm mainly an LD debater but have done PF and CX in the past. I started out as a traditional debater, so that's something I am well versed in, but Larp is what I'm the most comfortable with. With that being said, here are my preferences.

1) Larp/Theory

2) Trad.

3) Non-traditional K's/Trix/Phil

Speaks: I'm pretty laid back when it comes to speaks. I grade on the (25-30) scale. If you spread and/or run any sort of progressive content without my or your opponent's permission you will get an automatic 25, no questions asked. Same thing with any kind of sexist, racist, or homophobic slur or anything of that nature. I'm fine with cursing, as long as it's in your card. Cursing at either me or your opponent will result in an automatic 25. If you manage to make a Taylor Swift reference sometime in round, I'll give you at least 28 speaks.

Spreading: Spreading is fine, just please send me a speech doc if you plan to do so.

My email is juliayangfb@gmail.com

Other notes: Tech>Truth. Don't just tell me I should vote for you because you won a specific thing. Tell me how and why you won it. Extensions are incredibly important, but please don't try to bring up already dropped arguments for me to extend, I won't count them. In other news, I like clash. Clash is good and I will vote off of it. But please don't try to be purposefully aggressive to create clash. Don't try to defend your whole case throughout the entire round. Collapsing to only one or two arguments is perfectly fine. I will not vote off the framework debate alone. Please impact weigh!!!!! Finally, please be mindful of who your opponent is. You forfeit your right to complain about a loss the minute you spread or run progressive on a novice.

My discord is acreamcolouredteacup#5631 if you need to contact me or have any other questions.

With all of that said, good luck and may the odds forever be in your favor.