Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

I have several years of experience judging more traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas debate for Brentwood. I will flow and base my decision on the arguments. I tend to prefer using the value framework as the lens by which I make my decision. I am not as comfortable with very circuit-type arguments. I tend not to favor theory or kritical arguments. And I prefer more conversational delivery—speed could factor negatively.

Backround: 6 years policy debate. Debated four years in highschool two years coaching. I'm okay with tag team, spreading, and i determine when prep time stops based on the debaters consensus.

Affs: I can deal with traditional affermatives pretty well seeing as it was the foundation for my debating just remember to extend well and impact everything clearly. As far as k affs are concerned I'll vote on them but am more skewed toward traditional policy options. 

Theory: I'll vote on theory if its dropped or the other team doesnt sufficiently answers it. As far as kicking just remember to answer all there offense before you drop it or I'll interpret the debate the way the other team framed it.

Cp/Da: I'm good with CP's/Da's and will vote on them if the neg proves there impacts are comparably worse then the aff and vise versa. At then end of the day there should always be an explanation as to why the CP's better or why the affs better.

Ks: Experienced with Ks and will vote on them if work is put into the link and impact story. There should also be work put into explaining how I should wiegh the impacts of the k versus those of the aff.

Other Stuff:

- I consider anlytics almost as much as cards in my decision.

- speaker points wise I think I'm fair and always average out what I think is best

-I enjoy rounds where there is a lot of back and forth between oppents concerning Impacts

- Lastly remember to always be respectful of everyone in the room.

Capitalism sux

Clarity > speed. 

Overall, you do you. Debate is supposed to be fun, don't be rude. 

Know your evidence

Impact calc is nice, persuade me to vote for u

Please include me on email chains. Email: danigoodlv@gmail.com

Gabrielino High School 2011-2015

tech>truth

Speech times are set, one team wins

I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals. My email is matthew.graca@gmail.com

However, will (attempt to) not reevaluate this evidence post-round, I don't want to do that work for you.

Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions.

If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this.

I don't believe in debating for anyone. If you can justify it, you can run it. I believe if someone makes a truly despicable argument, you should clap back and make them regret it.

DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GOT FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT. I AM ACTUALLY AN IDIOT SO PLEASE MAKE MY LIFE EASY

*CHRIST ALMIGHTY SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY*

I am VERY bad at catching blippy arguments. if you spend less than a sentence on the arg, i probably won't catch it. beat me over the head with it tyvm.

honestly i didn't actually believe i was really tabula rasa until i recently voted for a tragically underanswered spreading bad arg do you understand what that does to a man i don't play NO GAMES MANG

GENERAL STUFF

Topic Familiarity: I probably won't research the topic and most likely won't judge it enough to know the meta. I would avoid using acronyms that have previously not been defined

Delivery: Not really used to speed anymore tbh. Using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctively puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow.

Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count. but again, don't count on me to catch blippy args

CP threshold: Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory. but as long as you keep your theory organized, i will likely be able to follow

PROCEDURAL STUFF

tag team cx is fine

having your partner speak for you is ok, but if it occurs enough times say bye bye to your speaks

prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer / the email is sent

time each other's prep, i will not keep track

FRAMEWORK

Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. I think of fw like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benz to your vision of debate.

you can frame the impacts of your fw. i love filtering since it makes my decision easier

KRITIK

I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam.

ALTS

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving land back? what is revolutionary suicide supposed to mean? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% capitalism solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily gag

THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks

Nietzsche: I was the 1n that spent his time finding links for my partner that can literally (literally.) only go for Nietzsche. At the last leg of our careers wanted to run death good, but ever could :(

Race: probs the one I’m most comfortable with, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year.

French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews and explain your buzzwords. if not, the other team could prob say "lol whatre you even saying" as an effective response. i do not like being pressured to vote for something that is incoherent.

etc (queer, ableism, things i can't think of): no real experience, but i have no reason to dislike these args at all so go for it

THEORY THEORY THEORY

For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this crap... I have a very hard time following theory debates that are just blasting at full speed. If you do this and ask why my decision is incomplete, this will be why.

note for ld: i've never voted for an rvi and god willing i never will. unless it gets egregiously dropped

For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion:

Interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters

This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory. It's pure nonsense and a headache to adjudicate where one side had 5 lines of DAs to the interp and the other had 6 lines and it's just throwing crap at the wall (aka ME >:|) and seeing what sticks.

Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy your strategy setup where you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they drop their no link arguments”, but hey everything's gotta be a friggen voter doesn't it, huh.

As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. T-subs and a spending DA hits different.

In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Potential abuse is fairly weak for me tbh, but if it's there i'll evaluate it the best i can

judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P. "the status quo is always an option" makes me uncomfortable b/c you're making me do it. commit to something.

SPEAKER POINTS

Speaks = organization + ethos + clarity

I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. HAVE SOME PERSONALITY, THAT HELPS YOUR SPEAKS LOTS.

I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style, please respect the local volume.

I should be able to coherently hear the texts of your cards btw.

Breakdown:

30: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

29: hey you should get a speaker award in this tourney

28: not likely to get a speaker award but i like the cut a ya jib

27: delivery is incoherent at key moments or made life hell playing flow hopscotch

26: it is possible that words were spoken but i can neither confirm nor deny

25: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

Please look at Adam Torson's paradigm.

 I am a parent with 3 years of circuit judging experience. 

Speed is fine, be clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll start docking speaks.

If you want to make me happy run policy-style args, though I'll vote on pretty much anything. Meaning, I'll vote on your non T Aff but you'll make me very sad. Everything else is fair game. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. 

Don't be mean. Don't be racist, sexist, or a blatantly terrible person. 

Be good people.

I like frameworks and impacts back to the framework.

I'm probably too tired to keep up with top speeds. Go for conversationally brisk.

I have not been in the circuit scene for years. I'm guessing it's gone through some changes.

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Brief Background

Debated two years in LAMDL.

Currently debating at Cal State Fullerton.

Cross ex

I allow tag team.

CP

They're fine. I will usually vote for them if 1.) Perm(s) are effectively answered, 2.)  CP is thoughtfully worded (no lazy CP's), 3.) Above all has a net benefit of some kind. Chances are I will not vote for a CP that states 'let other agent do it because they're better.'  Having a CP with a DA as net benefit is very convincing. Long story short CP without a net benefit will be brushed off by me by the end of the debate round.

DA

They are always compelling as long as the analysis for how the affirmative creates the problems is thoroughly communicated. I will vote solely for a DA if the negative team brings forth a thorough impact analysis as well as a coherent story for how voting for the aff gets us to said impacts. 

K

K debates are fun. If a neg chooses to run one it's important to find specific evidence for why an aff links to a K. i really appreciate neg teams that use cards in the 1AC as links. Essentially, if you provide one piece of evidence in their own 1AC that links to your K, you win the link debate. Generic links are also fine. Just make sure you explain how it plays out against the aff. However, the alt must also be thoroughly explained. If by the end of the debate round 1.) I don't hear a role of ballot, or 2.) don't understand why my ballot is going to improve our world I'm going to have a hard time voting for a K. 

T

Always extend interpretation, violation, standards, and all that jazz. If one gets lost as the debate progresses, I'm not voting for T. More importantly, the negative must talk about how the standards play in the debate round, and why the aff is bad for the debate community. Solely, saying 'judge they're cheating!' doesn't cut it. This isn't pre k and I don't like snitches. Essentially T must have impacts (standards). No impacts no win.

Theory

Essentially the same as T. They are fine as long as you impact your argument, and explain how the affirmative/negative's abuses are bad for the debate community.

Oncase

The negative win can win a debate round if they manage to provide enough offense on the aff. Solvency deficits are fine, but case turns will put the affirmative in a bad position, and incline me to vote for the neg. 

K Affs

These are pretty simple. If the affirmative chooses to run a K aff they must 1.) explain why their topic is important to discuss in the debate community and 2.) Explain why my ballot matters in improving the affirmative's impacts. In other words, if the aff discusses about racial oppression, they better not say my vote solves for all that, and makes the world all sunny sunshine. There must be a very detailed discussion as to why my vote matters to all the aff's impacts. If I don't find a reason for why my vote helps improve the problems the affirmative brings up, i will not vote for it.

Miscellaneous 

I don't mind spreading. However, emphasize on tags and authors. If you know you're reading a piece of evidence that's crucial for the debate round, emphasize on it. 

Be nice. Be respectful. Follow the golden rule and we'll all leave the debate round happy, holding hands, singing kumbaya.

For further questions feel free to contact me at 

andger15@Hotmail.com (yes I still use hotmail, because i'm hipster like that)

With that said good luck fellow youth of America!

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.

I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.

Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.

PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.