http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abhyankar%2C+Rahul

 

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

I am aparent judge and have experience judging LD Novice rounds last year. I generally do not disclose the decision after of the round, but, will leave inputs on the ballot.

I am not comfortable with speed, but if you decide to you must be extremely clear.

If you spread you must flash the case/rebuttal to both me (email) and your opponent. Go slow and sign post on the taglines, analytics and especially during rebuttals. If you don't I probably won't understand the arguments you are making and won't vote on them. If you don't see me flowing/typing or I have a confused expression, I probably don't understand what you are saying and you should slow down. For each card you extend explain the impact and how it functions under the debate, the same goes with framework. I will only vote on things that are extended in your last speech.

K's:

Read slowly and explain clearly. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Plan/Counterplan:

I will more comfortable with the plan/counterplan debate and will prefer if you run these types of arguments over K's and phil.

Theory:

I am only familiar with conditionality but I will be able to understand other theory arguments if they are clearly explained and have a real implication to the debate. Slow down on the interp and counter interps.

Have fun debating!

 

I'm not a big fan of speed, as I believe that debate should be a listening activity. I'm not experienced with theory, if you attempt to run it you will need to break it down for me to evaluate it. I don't like kritiks because I feel that it takes away from the education of debate. I can flow, however I have limited debate experience. I only vote off of args that I understand, and I weigh args based on the best justification paradigm. I ask that debaters weigh the args in their rebuttals and make all voting issues clear for me. I cut speaker points if you go too fast (I will raise my hand during the speech as a signal to slow down) or if you are rude during cross-x. 

Background: I have spent almost 3 plus years judging policy debate. but you should definitely avoid using too much complicated jargon. That means you should explain your impacts well enough so that I can evaluate them and easily follow your arguments--always signpost. I know that Ks are basically inevitable in the policy community at this point, but keep in mind I probably don't know as much about the high theory literature as you do.

Speaker points: I usually give speaker points based on courtesy, fluency, and confidence. Humour will always work in your favor. At the end of the day, debate is just a game so there is never a reason to get hostile.

Speed: I would probably retain the most information if you don't "spread". I won't vote on it if it's not on my flow, so it would be in your best interest to not go too fast

Weighing arguments: I dont have any specific agruments that I like to vote on--you can consider me a tabula rasa judge. Just make sure you organize all of your arguments, articulate your impact calculus well, and concisely state your most important points. Tell me what I'm voting for in the overviews of your rebuttals.

Remember to have have fun, debate is all about the learning experience!

I'll vote on anything that is explained clearly, and provides a clear weighing mechanism to make it easier to vote.

If I did not catch something on my flow I am definetly not voting for it, so make taglines clear and do not go too fast.

I have a high threshold when it comes to understading Ks.

Clear Voters, do not leave the work up to me.

I default competing interps in regards to theory. I'll buy other arguments if they are explained well.

Good speaks: Effective strategy, polite, and working well with your partner.

Bad speaks: Opposite of above.

 

 

 

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

I am a parent judge and this is my second year from judging Policy and LD.

• Please refrain from spreading, especially when you get into more complex arguments, will be harder for me to keep up with.
• Please make sure you define all obscure words and explain them clearly.
• I tend to weigh on 'countering' so please do your best to knock out all of opponent's arguments.

Being rude will make you lose speaker points, and if excessive, I will vote against you. 

I will not disclose a result.

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.

Policy:

I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.

I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.

Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.

I debated lay LD for MVLA for 5 years and Impromptu for 3 years.

I will flow, but no spreading and make sure to signpost. I do not judge off of CX, so your performance during CX will not affect the final outcome and make sure to bring up points in your speeches. Please link impacts and arguments back to framework.

I am improving from "Lay" judge status to the "Circuit" judge status , but not there yet . Please do not spread for now and articulate your arguments very clearly for me.

Please also explain jargon. Again, I'm still learning this stuff, so instead of using LD jargon, please use simpler things that I would understand. Deliberate as you will.

My name is Ritesh Kumar, I am a lay judge from Dougherty Valley Speech and Debate. 
I like clarity, structure and logic. I will remember things if you emphasize them, things like slowing down and extending work well. If you are consistent with that expect good speaks. I cannot tolerate profanity, racism and other such inappropriate comments. 
I have judged in a couple of novice tournaments last season. I'm not too tolerant of jargon, and only weigh what I understand. If you tell me to consider something more than others,then I will.
I might take notes, I can't flow, 
Good luck!  

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maganahalli%2C+Ayush

I do not prefer speed because I believe that debate should be clear and open to all. I am okay with counter plans and Disads as long as you explain them well. In addition I am okay with critics as long as you have other arguments which have a clear impact. I love framework debate because it tells me what I should weigh the debate on. I recommend candidates to link all arguments back to framework and do lots of impact calculus. I can follow easily but please do not speak too fast to just complete your write up. 

Hi my name is Hiroshi, no need to be formal or anything.

 

I am a parent judge and I dont know how debate works at all and I'm getting the hang of it. When ever i judge i usually base it on who ever sounded good becasue ill have no clue what you are even arguing about. But at the same time I do evaluate substance a little bit as long as you go very very slow.

 

I really hate spreading and I'll default for the other side if you do so and please no jargons

 

I dont know how theory works so dont read those and I'll have no clue whats happening when you're reading a K or tricks because I didnt read the topic literature and this is my first time judging at a circuit debate whether its novice or varsity and i really dont like judging so please make the round entertaining.

Don't assume I know everything make sure to have your explanations flushed out

 

time yourselfs

4 years debating mostly in PF, graduated in 2018

updated for BR: I am old now so pls don't assume I know anything about this topic and also speak not too too fast thank u <3

• If you need any accommodations to be able to access the round, such as keeping it below a certain wpm, let me know before the round and directly in front of your opponents

• I can understand theory and am willing to vote on theory, but I have a particularly hard time voting for disclosure theory

• I won't evaluate unrelated DAs/new contentions/new impacts past case. Additionally, if your argument is one thing and constructive and suddenly becomes something new (adds an impact, changes an impact) in the final focus I'm not evaluating it.

• No defense in first summary or rebuild in second rebuttal required.

• I'll call for any piece of evidence you tell me to in a speech if it'll make an impact on my decision even if you don't say why. However, if you explain why it's misconstrued or otherwise bad I'll be more likely to see the problem.

• I don't vote for impacts that aren't terminalized.

It should go without saying that if you say something offensive that passes the threshold of an innocent mistake your speaks are getting dropped, and if you get called out on it and continue to do it you’re getting the lowest speaks possible from me.

My email is meganmunce2022@u.northwestern.edu if you have any questions before or after the round!

I'm not a big fan of speed as I believe debate should be a listening activity. I'm not very familiar with theory but if you break it down for me as a regular argument that would be great. K's should be explained thoroughly. I have Four years of experience judging Lincoln Douglas but it has been in the JV , PF division. Be respectful with your opponent when you raise your point.The bottom line is if I don't understand it, I'm not voting off it. Your job as the debater is to explain the arguments you make.

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread or read complicated arguments. No jargon. I will drop you for reading theory or kritiks.

Hey folks!

TLDR; tech > truth, weigh a ton and explicitly please ty :)

I just graduated from Berkeley in 2021, graduated HS in 2017, and primarily competed in Circuit LD in high school! I'm generally comfortable with theory, K's, phil, whatever you want to run. I have been out of the activity for a while now, so will probably struggle a bit with spreading as fast as you can, but I'll call "clear" and "slow" as needed. Other than that, make sure you cover voters in the last speech, and ideally, write my ballot for me!

I'm also definitely not well versed on the topic, so don't assume I know things and tag them with brief phrases - I probably don't know what you're talking about.

Feel free to ask more questions about my paradigm before the round begins if you'd like! Mostly open to any argument style as long as it's not obviously problematic.

Please put me on the email chain - amyleighsantos@gmail.com

I debated for 3 years at Presentation High School in LD and policy and coached throughout college. I mostly read critical arguments, as well as some policy oriented stuff. I am probably not the best judge for phil/tricks, but that being said, you should read whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me! I am absolutely fine with speed but I haven’t judged much lately so it would be helpful for me if you start slow. More specifics:

Ks: I really love K debate, as as I mentioned above, that’s what I read most of in high school. However, I will not just vote for you because I like the K, so please make sure you’re explaining the story of the K, putting in the work on the link and framing debates, etc. I also really loved reading K affs (I was big into fem stuff in high school) but make sure you are clearly articulating a reason to vote aff and what the aff actually does. I am looking for an explanation of what your method actually looks like in practice, and why it means I should vote for you.

Policy/LARP: I also really enjoy policy debate! I don’t think there’s really much to say here but I appreciate good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews.

Framework/T: I love a good framework debate, but it's also in your best interest to engage the substance of the aff! I think the more specific your framework/T shell is, the more interesting/strategic

Theory: I don't mind theory but these debates tend to get messy, so try to keep it clean and maybe go a little slower.

Phil/tricks: I am really not a good judge for phil and don't particularly enjoy it, sorry :,(

The easiest way to win in front of me is to really clearly and explicitly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many arguments that aren't impacted or explained very well.

My favorite part about debate is when students are passionate about what they defend and read positions they care about. Please don't be sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, etc.

I am a parent judge with limited knowledge of debate. Speak slowly and clearly.

 Hi. 

I am a parent. Pref accordingly. 

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Yang%2C+Xianglei

I am a flow judge. I won't intervene against arguments, unless told to do so. If I can’t vote for either side without intervening, I will go by the path of least intervention.

I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round, defense almost never wins rounds.

If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it. I will be sympathetic to AR turns against new arguments coming out of the Neg Block.

If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive (for example, theory in the 2AC against an abusive 1NC), I will cross-apply and weigh 2NC arguments against AR responses myself in order to offset the Aff getting the last word.

All extensions should include warrants and impacts, taglines themselves aren't offense.

If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

I will vote on blips as long as the articulation is convincing and there is clear reason to prefer the blip over all other arguments in the round.

If the entire round comes down to a factual question, I will Google it.

I like when the Aff has a specific plan text and framing. I welcome specification theory on all plans. 

I enjoy listening to structured critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. "Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy voting on lazy generic links – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right. I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If you're reading something that you think I haven't heard before, make sure to explain it well enough so that I understand the argument. I will not vote for critical arguments that make no sense.

If you run a procedural as a time suck when there is no clear abuse, I will be open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

I default to net benefits. Weigh your impacts for me; the less work I have to do the better.

I'm fine with topical counterplans. I don’t think the Neg should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for K alts and other negative advocacies.

Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not that okay. I'm won't drop you, but it might impact your speaks. If anyone in the room says 'slow' or 'clear', adhere to them accordingly.

Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, K alternatives, theory interps, et cetera) and read them twice. If you write out your advocacy text on a piece of paper and give it to your opponents (as well as to me at the end of the round) upon request, I'll boost your speaker points. 

When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order.

If you bring me food or drinks of any kind, it will help your speaker points and maybe even your chance to win.

I prefer teams to take two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, you should take clarification questions after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

If you say 'illegal immigrant' I will drop you. People are not illegal, some are just undocumented.