I'm pretty open minded to any technique/approach with respect to cases and debating (spreading, Critiques, Theories etc).

I expect both debaters to exhibit sportsmanship and decorum when engaging with each other.

Be sure to provide adequate evidence and to link back to your Contention/Value Criterion. Try to provide distinctive arguments in a claim-warrant-impact format.

Also, be sure to crystallize your arguments in your last speech. This is important on the flow and I will weigh the round based on this.

Email: Akridgea989@gmail.com

UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

As a judge i only ask for a clear explanation of what you want to say. i need a clear picture of what the world of the neg looks like and a clear picture of what the world of the aff looks like. this is most important for me in the case of link stories, well warranted arguments, solvency mechanisms, all this needs argued well and clear. Any argument is fine with me as long as you understand what you are saying, stick with what you can debate. Spreading is fine as well, the only thing i have a problem with is if you run theory make sure the flow is structured well, i do not really like theory that much besides topicality, if you run it i prefer to hear clear education voters, and abuse story. i do not really like performance aff's, if you run performance to get my ballot make sure you make me understand the significance of the performance in the round, what it does in the round, what is the overall idea to the performance and the aff being important. also solvency mechanism needs to be easy to understand, you need to do work to prove to me your performance is successful in everything it is meant to do, if it actually does something. Other wise i am fine i like critical debates, hearing a very well thought out discussion, i feel like this comes in best with very well developed critical aff's, and the neg running critiques. Counter plans are fine with me as well as disads. i am open to any arguments as long as debated well.

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Aaron Kraut

Updated for '12 - '13 season

I debated 4 years (LD & PF) @ Marlboro High School. This is my third year debating in college (I'm a junior). I major in philosophy and double minor in political science and comparative literature. 

While I still prefer extremely critical debate, I'm extremely familiar with f/w , T, theory, & politics debates because of the strats people tend to run against me. That said, do what you do best and I'll adapt, whether you're a straight up team or a one off Baudrillard team, I'm down with either as long as its a good competitive round. I love debates that challenge, and even attempt to destroy, the current nature of debate. I think debate is headed down a pretty shitty path so any team that tries to revise that path will be greatly rewarded. This doesn't exclude straight up teams - if you can create an awesome debate that actually makes people THINK about the implications of your policy/plan, I would love to judge you as well. Specifics are below -

POLICY:

F/W:

- As indicated above, I think this is the only hope for the activity. Debate will probably die sooner or later, so this should be your chance to argue why you do or don't want it to. I don't care how you do it, that's up to you to decide. This doesn't mean I need to you to explicitly explain why debate should or shouldn't die, but make arguments as to why debate as a whole (or some parts of it) are worth preserving (or not).
- Articulate the Net Benefits so I don't have to guess. I don't have any biases as to what either side should be doing, so if you're going for framework, you should be explaining to me why the other team's specific form of debate is a reason to reject them. I'm not persuaded by arguments that appeal to preserving debate norms for the sake of preserving them (give me warrants!!!).
- On the neg, often I don't respond to f/w until the 1NR so i think the conventions of debating f/w are open to in round debate as well. If you don't want me to default to the line-by-line, tell me why. I'm down for it.
- Definitely open to arguments about why holding people answerable to the flow is bad, etc. Debate is a game so whatever f/w you think makes it the most fun is up to you.
- If there is no f/w debate, then I default to the line-by-line
- Don't be boring, pleaseeeeee.

T & all procedurals:

- These arguments are very strategic, BUT i will never vote on the argument "All we could do was run theory/f.w./T/etc.!!!"
- Good procedural debates tell a story that draws its links from the other team's arguments and cards. Abuse stories need be just that - stories. Generally, I do NOT care about topic education and I think the idea that whatever's discussed is limited to the words of the rez is silly. If you want me to vote on topic specific ed, fairness, limits, predictability (w/e), then articulate why reading a 1AC that has nothing to do with the topic is bad for debate and articulate what sort of future precedent it will set. Likewise, I hate when critical teams stand up and read a bunch of RP bad evidence - its boring. Tell me why your specific form of education is good and what sort of effect this education has on future discussions of the topic.
- Very open to GOOD (thats in caps for a reason) kritiks of F/W, T, etc. (99% of the time that's how I answer them on the aff). That said, you need a good explanation of your impacts or I won't care why reading f/w or T is bad.
- I default to competing interpretations

DA's and CP's:

- I appreciate a good CP or DA throw down but I think people kill this form of debate by being lazy. So if this your style, articulate your story and use the evidence as a template for that story. The evidence isn't the argument - it is a tool for you to use in order to make an argument.
- Also, be SMART!!! Awesome politics scenarios aren't created by cards, they're created by smart debaters who understand the context of their evidence. The only reason why this form of debate is bothersome to me is because people get caught up in the tech of it so they don't logically evaluate the scenario. But if you're SMART, then I'd be happy to vote on your PIC, agent CP, or DA.

K's:

- Well versed in "continental" philosophy (a meaningless label nowadays). Anything that seems to fall within that, I'm sure I have at least some (if not a lot) experience with. I mostly debate Nietzsche, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Lacan, and other jokesters of the like. Feel free to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your authors (I'm willing to tell you what books I have or have not read by your author)
- With regard to contemporary analytic philosophy, I would say my areas of significant knowledge include: social and political philosophy, religion, decision theory, action theory, metaphysics and aesthetics. My areas of competence include: phil of physics, ethics, epistemology, and phil of cognitive science
- I've probably read most of your K lit, but that means its your job to take the lit and apply it to construct an argument. But that means you need to explain it to me in the exact fashion you'd like me to interpret it so when I'm giving my RFD I can explain to the other team exactly what the hypertrophying of language (or w.e.) is and does in context of your argument rather than in context of the book its from. Same goes for the aff. That's not to say I won't vote on vague K alts or aff advocacies, but you need to make substantial arguments why you shouldn't have to explain further and why doing so would be counter-intuitive.
- ALSO, if you want me to co-opt you interpretation of the lit when examining your arguments and how they interact with others on the flow, then you need to tell me to do that. If your 1AC/1NC utilizes a specific interpretation of "ressentiment", etc. then you need to make that explicit in your analysis or else I have to default to my interpretations of your K lit based on the reading I have done independently. It's true I know what most of the buzzwords mean, but my interpretation is almost always different from the one debaters try to employ.
- Framework is key. I don't see how you can win a good K w/out taking shots at the aff's f/w on all levels, especially (well, first and foremost) the meta level. Doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a separate flow to indict the other team's methodology, but you at least need to give me reasons for rejecting the starting point of the other team's framework (ex. if you win we need to take a different ontological approach than that assumed by the 1AC and explicate what this means for the f/w of the round on the line-by-line, that's probably fine).
- I flow the text of cards. Thus, your tags are rather meaningless to me and I vote on the content of your arguments, how you guys explain it and how you use it. As a result, I'll never vote on a dropped impact turn in a critical round without an explanation of the warrant of the card and how it interacts with the aff (same goes for a critical aff if you're trying to win a turn on f/w or something)


- Not as well versed in critical race theory, but I'm starting down that road now as I'm quite interested in it. I'm open to Wilderson type arguments, and all other race type arguments. I apologize for using the words "race type" arguments, I understand that may be offensive. Unfortunately, I can't think of another way to say it while still being explicit. Also, I understand that it's highly problematic that I can't conceive of another way to express this, as well as the fact that shit like this is a reason why teams run arguments like these to begin with. Over the past year I've been exposed to and have taken part in a lot of these debates. I've found that many judges feel uncomfortable being called out in this type of round for being guilty of the same things the team is criticizing - I'm not one of those judges. I LIKE to feel uncomfortable and out of place in these rounds; if I don't, then you're probably not doing a good job. Honestly, I can't be guilted into a voting for a team, I just can't. I've been known to be rather emotionless as a debater, and I'm the same way as a judge. If you can incite some sort of emotional response from me in this type of debate, then kudos to you and you'll be highly rewarded with awesome speaks. That said, focus your performance/arguments around the warrants of your arguments, not some attempt to emotionally guilt me into voting for you. That shit just won't work. Other than that, I'm really open to these debates and I do have significant knowledge with regard to psychoanalysis, so I can adjudicate high theory debates with regard to Wildersonian type arguments that draw on Lacan.

- If you're good at what you do, then you'll win in front of me. I know, shocker. No, seriously though, If you do what you do, I'll be able to adjudicate the round as you want me to. I'm a philosophy major and given my background in both analytic and continental philosophy, I shouldn't have a problem understanding the complexities of your arg't or literature. If I do, then (a) you're not explaining it well enough, (b) you're misappropriating the lit and at the end of the round you've done next to no analysis so I'm left to sort things out on my own and dig through the lit on my own - you don't want this b/c even though I've been debating critical lit for a while, I still approach it in a much more academic sense than I do debate sense, (c) the other team actually tries to debate you on your lit and the line-by-line gets messy with little comparative analysis - again, this is bad for you b/c i find myself examining unexplained warrants in a very academic sense grounded in my prior knowledge (since you're not providing me with any). I can almost assure you that if this happens, both teams will probably be screwed b/c it's extremely rare that a debate arg't correctly applies the literature without manipulating it to form the argot. Manipulating it is fine, and you probably should, but if you don't explain to me how and why you do that, then I can only view your argument in relation to the opponent's arguments and the actual primary source you're citing.

Theory:

- It's whatever. I think the zero-point of debate is when teams just read theory blocks back at one another. If i thought this was interesting then I would just take your tubs/computers and read your ev in silence. Make substantive arguments with abuse stories (like i mentioned above in f/w). I vote on theory if I need to but I try to vote on more substantive arguments than a dropped sub point on a crappy severance block. The key here is not to while and to make arguments.

LD:

Speed:

I'm fine with it. I'm a policy debater so I'm used to it. But if you're spreading be clear. I won't say "clear", i'll probably just stare at you with a blank expression if I can't understand you (if this happens, you should do something about it). If i can't understand you, then you probably shouldn't be trying to speak as fast. That said, I prefer a fast debate (if one or both debaters are clear) b/c it allows for more arguments and theoretically, results in a better debate with more developed ideas than the typical and blippy ones were all so used to hearing. Honestly, if you can spread 600 words/min and are clear I'm totally cool with that. Likewise, I'm open to theory arguments concerning why speed is bad for LD. I don't want the round to be a reflection of what I like/enjoy, I want it to be a reflection of what's said in the round. If your a debater that doesn't spread and your strat is to read a speed K, I'm definitely open to that. I think there are tons of great arguments to be made that explain why speed may be really bad, but MAKE them! Don't make generic fairness, ground or education claims - I'm not persuaded by appeals to preserve debate norms absent a discussion why those debate norms are actually worth preserving in the 1st place. This probably means you wot win this argument reading blocks or making tag line extensions in front of me, sorry (but not really).

Important Notes:

(1) I don't like whining - it's annoying. I don't arbitrarily decide if arguments are abusive or have preconceived notions as to what abuse is. You must make good, intelligent arguments if you what to have any chance of getting me to vote on theory, f/w or another procedural
(2) Let the opponent answer questions - If you refuse to let your opponent answer a question in CX, I'll give you low speaks b/c it shows your lack of strategy and unwillingness to have the most competitive round possible. However, if the opponent is rambling or just being non responsive, then you can obviously cut he/she off.
(3) "I ( or no one) can/can't understand their argument" is NOT an argument. It's your job to clarify highly complex arguments in cross-ex. That said, if you make a valid attempt to do this and the opponent is super vague, I'll give you some leeway when evaluating theory arguments.

AFF:

- I think debate is an intellectual playground first and foremost. It's a space where we can question the most fundamental assumptions/beliefs/normative statements/etc. without consequence. That being said, I'll literally allow the aff to do anything they want as long as you tell me why i should vote aff. VP's, VC's, Standards, etc are all optional in my mind because all of these norms are just strategic ways to win rounds. If you can come up with a more strategic way to debate than using community norms, then I'm all ears.
- Must you debate the topic? I don't think so. I'll let you talk about whatever you want as long as it somehow justifies an aff ballot (ex. whiteness affs, hypercritical affs, etc). It is the NEG's responsibility to stick the aff to the topic
- Answering multiple off - I don't listen to whiny debaters who complain about time skew, instead i listen to debaters who explain why time skew is bad, sets a bad precedent (w.e. that means) and impacts it out. That said, if they neg reads 5 off with 1 (or 0) cards on each, I'll let you group the flows to make it a theory debate. Any argument goes.
- PERMs: obviously make them. Because I let the neg do w/e that means I give full leeway as the aff to actually challenge whether or not their f/w interp is competitive and whether the k's alt does anything. Also feel free to perm fiat. I really really enjoy fiat debates that discuss whether the aff/neg worlds are at all different. These are the best debates b/c I don't really give a shit what your evidence says, all I care about is why you're reading it. Also, I'm not really sure how the PERM functions in LD b/c its a values debate, so you need to articulate HOW the PERM functions and WHAT it does.
- I expect you to make 3 arguments in response to every neg argument (ex. No link, No Impact, Turn of some sort). Obviously if you have 1 amazing argument (like a really well thought out double turn) then you don't need to make 3. This means group and cross-apply argt's on the flow to put a lot of pressure on your opponent. If you do this, you get high speaks.
- Not sure how a 1AC policy approach presents a certain value as worth voting for. I don't require VP's or VC's, or anything really, but you should probably advocate some sort of value and give me a reason why your policy proves endorsing would be a good idea. The flip side to that is telling me why the debate should be used to evaluate the best policy option, as opposed to the best value. I will and do vote on these different approaches, but have an approach. If your 1AC has a plan and you don't give a f/w discussion that explains how your aff interacts in the round, a nag ballot will be a really easy decision for me.

NEG:

- Do whatever you want as long as you give me a reason to negate. That includes K's, PICs, PIKs, CP's, DA's, T, and whatever else you can come up with
- I expect you to make 3 arguments in response to every aff argument (ex. No link, No Impact, Turn of some sort). Obviously if you have 1 amazing argument (like a really well thought out double turn) then you don't need to make 3. This means group and cross-apply argt's on the flow to put a lot of pressure on your opponent. If you do this, you get high speaks.
- Be ready to answer the PERM and do it well.

On Specific Types of Positions:

- On T/framework: see above in policy, I expect you to do similar things although I understand you don't have as much time. Still, a good f/w debate is not a shallow battle of interp's - that's amateur hour. I vote on abuse claims if they come from a well developed story - this does NOT mean: "Nietzsche is so unpredictable vote them down for even walking in here with that." Yea that doesn't go over well with me. Is fiat mandatory? what is fiat? have this debate and you'll keep me interested
- DAs or CPs: Go for it but do it well. Nothing is worse than an LDer who tries to go 3,4 or 5 off and only has 1 argument on each flow by the end of the round. If you go multiple off be strategic, blow up the aff's weakest flow and be smart.
- Ks: (see above in policy). I'm a philosophy major so I'll probably understand whatever crazy arg't you can come up with. That said, don't read a Nietzsche or Baudrillard K just to adapt to me because I will cringe in frustration if you mishandle and misinterpret the lit. If you don't explain buzzwords then you're leaving me to interpret them at the end of the round based on my own knowledge - this probably isn't good for you if the round is centered around the concept of "ressentiment" or "hyper-realism", "simulation", etc. A good K debater characterizes every aff argument in context of the K (this means every aff arg't becomes a new link to the K, justifies rejecting the perm, etc.)

LD debate

Not best judge for theory but I’ll listen and evaluate any clear argument

The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, organization, and clarity.

and

Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)

and

Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.

POLICY

1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and convince me it would work in practice

- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. But once again, make it clear and easy to follow.

2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and

3. Cross Ex is binding, it’s still a speech act

A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan

PUBLIC FORUM

- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments

- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"

debate history: I debated PF and policy for Newark Science from 2015-2017. I graduated in 2017. I have been judging PF, policy, and LD since 2016.

I've debated policy debate 4 years in high school and 3 years in college as a part of the Rutgers Newark Debate Team. I have used all kinds of arguments; I am familiar with both traditional and critical forms of debate. I willing to vote for any argument provided that it is warranted. I really value responsiveness, if an argument is dropped a team could spin that into a victory, but there needs to be a clear explanation of all the steps to impact and explain why said impact is something I should vote on. I willing to vote on T or Theory but if you want to win on those arguments, there has to be a bigger emphasis on clear-cut definitions, examples, and overall impact of violations. I'm comfortable with both traditional and k affs.

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

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.

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

TOPICALLY

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

DISADVANTAGES

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

• CRITQUE

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

I’ve competed in Policy Debate at Science Park High School/University High School (Jersey Urban Debate League now known as Newark Debate Academy) in Newark, NJ.

*Experienced Judging in LD, Policy Debate as well as Public Forum.*

-I prefer debaters to stand when speaking.

Speed: I generally don’t mind debater spreading as long as they are clear when they are reading evidence. I would like for debaters to slow down when reading tags. I want to be able to hear your warrants in the evidence. If you are going to be making any analytical arguments be sure to slow down for that as well.

Cross-Examination: I love C-X! Good C-X that is. Open C-X is OK with me as long as the debater whose turn it is does most of the speaking.

Speaker Points: 27 is average, I generally don’t go lower than a 25.

Evidence: Evidence should readily be available to everybody participating in the debate round. If there’s evidence read that doesn’t have any citation, I will disregard it.

I really appreciate it when debaters in rebuttals provide an overall summary of the round and crystallization.

The team that makes the best arguments and overall does superb job persuading me wins!

LD: Standards should be clear (Values and Criterion)

I'm currently a Ph.D. student and have not been active in the community for around 6 years. 2008-2010 I was a policy debater for Newark Science (NS). 2010-2012 I was an LD debater for NS. I used to spread regularly and run critical cases calling for more Black scholarship and narratives in debate. I also used to attend and judge for both regional and national tournaments (for example Harvard, Yale, Glenbrooks, etc.).

All that being said, please treat me like a lay judge that has the capacity to interpret all of your most complex arguments. I'm pretty sure I won't hear all the arguments if you go at your top speed and I'm not familiar with today's most popular arguments/authors.

Usually, I love Ks (when they are run correctly) and hate T/theory. I tend to give high speaks to those who have a storytelling delivery style. I will gladly answer questions before the round.

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.