Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

Some (possibly) relevant background: I debated LD from 2013-2017 at Scarsdale High School, never got a bid but made it to elims of a few bid tournaments, and I went to VBI Chicago after my sophomore year of high school. I’m currently a student at Northwestern University.

Short version:

I’ll vote on anything, provided I’m able to explain it back to you in my RFD. I must be able to clearly understand your argument without having to decipher copious amounts of stuff on my flow. Please give me voters slowly and clearly so I know what you’re talking about and can vote on it. Despite this, I’m much more likely to vote on theory/T, util-style plans with extinction, and relevant substance than I am to vote on complicated phil stuff, mostly because I really won’t understand it if you’re spreading and tend not to see links to the topic, non-topical positions, or K’s. I’m not amazing with speed (somewhere between your average parent judge and someone you’d probably pref a 1) but as long as you’re clear and have good, slow, clear voters I’ll be ok. Finally, I like arguments to be at least somewhat relevant to the topic. Be funny but not too rude, and ask me questions before the round!

Long version:

I’m not great with speed since I haven’t debated/judged for almost a year. Be clear and start off pretty slow, you can speed up a bit as the round goes on. If you notice me stop flowing, I’d strongly suggest you slow down a lot. I’ll say clear as many times as I need to without any penalty, but if it gets to a point where I basically say it every 15 seconds and you don’t change, I’ll give up and stop flowing. I’ll vote on anything as long as I can clearly understand it and know what you’re talking about. In other words, if I don’t have a damn clue what you’re talking about, you will likely lose.

Generally three categories of args for me: First category, I don’t really like these kinds of args and probably rethink your strat if you’re planning on running them:

· D&G or other radical cap K’s, Fem K’s, Ableism K’s, Gender Binary K’s

· Dense phil-heavy or framework-heavy stuff including but not limited to Levinas, Foucault, Nietzsche, Kant, or Ripstein

· Totally non-topical positions, especially if you’re the aff. To quote Ben Ulene, if you, as the aff, refuse to affirm that's fine, but I'll more likely than not refuse to affirm as well.

The next category is stuff I’m ambivalent on; if it’s your go-to then fine, read it, but know that I would prefer other args and keep that in mind because you should probably explain them more clearly in voters:

· Other K’s, like race K’s (Wilderson, Curry), Islamophobia, or Biopower

· I-Law or other mildly-dense frameworks, maybe constitutionality

There’s some limbo between these and stuff I do actually like to hear, including tricks and skep (Yes, I’m from Scarsdale but they’re hard for me to evaluate by their nature and my general not great flowing skills) and somewhat critical cases that aren’t K’s per se but have ROB’s.

Finally, stuff I do like and will be happy with you if you read:

· Theory/T

· CPs/DAs

· Util with:

o Plans

o Extinction impacts

o Plain old substantive stock contentions

In case you want to know my thoughts on each of these kinds of args, see below after the next few bullets, but the above covers the general view of different args.

Other things you should do during the round:

· Weigh. It’s true what they tell you in novice year, weighing is very important. The more you weigh the more likely I look positively on your argument, especially if your weighing isn’t just unsubstantiated crap.

· Weigh standards and voters in theory debates.

· Show me that there’s clash to args by weighing. (Seeing a trend here?)

· Give me clear, slow voters. If you’re spreading lots of arguments, chances are I missed at least one. Be sure you tell me why you’re winning (or why you think you’re winning) and how the main arguments in the round interact.

· Make clear link chains in util-style arguments.

· Weigh!

· Make jokes, throw some shade. Try to make them relevant but if you’re just funny about random stuff I like that too; don’t be mean about it though.

· Dominate during CX. While I’m on CX, I won’t flow it but I’ll pay attention. Don’t claim your opponent said something s/he didn’t, but if you get a concession in CX you have to extend it in later speeches.

· Signpost so I know where to flow what you’re saying. That’s “starting on the AC”, but also includes “on the argument that she makes…” so that I can know exactly where to flow.

· Definitely ask me questions before the round about my preferences (or other totally random things) if this doesn’t answer your questions, and also ask me questions after my RFD about what you did/what you can do better. That said, don’t question me.

I’ll vote on blippy arguments as long as you actually extend them in later speeches and tell me why they matter in the round. If they’re true and unrefuted, still extend them, but at that point an extension is sufficient to make it relevant to my RFD. I’ll also vote on random sort of sketchy arguments that other judges may not like, such as wi-fi theory, but I happen to dislike disclosure theory. I’ll vote on it but probably don’t plan on running it unless you’re genuinely at a serious disadvantage because of some abuse from it.

Let your opponent read your case over your shoulder if you don’t want to flash cases; I won’t make you flash but you have to let your opponent read over your shoulder, especially if you’re spreading. I’m sympathetic to those who want to read the case, I never was amazing at flowing super-fast spreading and found it really helpful to have the case or read along.

Now thoughts on specific arguments:

Theory/T:

My go-to strat for most of junior and senior year was to just read theory on whatever I could (Yes, I am from Scarsdale), and I basically had a few shells I would read and make genuinely applicable. Some might call this frivolous, and sometimes it was, but I did really try to make legit links to fairness and education in my shells. That said, I’ll vote for you on theory if you’re winning it and can tell me why you’re winning on it, no matter how frivolous. Notes on theory:

· Read your interp really slowly so I can clearly understand it.

· Theory comes before the K unless you really win that the reverse is true.

· I default to competing interps over reasonability, and will even tend to evaluate theory under CI unless you’re winning the debate and convince me to use reasonability and give me a good brightline.

· Read whatever voters you want, I don’t care, but actually explain them, no matter what they are.

· Don’t read a new shell in the 2AR unless something truly ridiculous and unprecedented went down in the 2NR. If you do read new 2AR theory, I’ll be reluctant to vote on it unless it’s really bad abuse in the 2NR and your shell is concise. In other words, I’ll vote for frivolous theory unless it’s a new shell in the 2AR, that’s a waste of everyone’s time.

· Default to drop the debater on both theory and T, but I can be persuaded otherwise and have no problem voting on drop the arg if you win it.

· Default to RVI’s with the conviction of that depending on the frivolousness of the shell, and I’ll be easily persuaded one way or another with a legit RVI debate.

· I don’t really have a default between fairness and education, depends on the shell and context.

· On all these points about defaults, please actually debate these bits of theory, they’re actually important and key to a good theory debate. If you just read a script of RVI/no RVI or CI/Reasonability for 4 speeches and don’t engage that’ll disappoint me.

K’s/Micropol:

I’m not a huge fan of K’s, which I get is bad and probably offensive for lots of people, but if you’re one of those people it’s not because I hate you or what you stand for, just don’t pref me high. Like I said before, I’ll listen to K’s but just won’t be very happy listening to them. If you decide to read a K, you had better:

· Have a ROB/ROJ, even if it is just a traditional “vote for the better debater”.

· Have a legitimate alt! I won’t vote for you if you don’t have an actual policy option as your alt. Don’t say “reject cap” or “reject whiteness” or “reject the aff”; if you want to do this, actually give me a real way we can minimize oppression or reject whiteness or respect the other. In other words, if you’re reading a K and are going to be fighting for educational-type arguments, there better be some actual impacts. Reject alts don’t get you this.

· Keep it simple and clear; I’m not well versed in K stuff, so explain everything to me and have real impacts please.

· Tell me why the K comes before theory if that debate arises, I’ll default to theory before the K unless you win the other way around.

· On the subject of micropol: I was put in a few uncomfortable situations as a debater where I genuinely did not know what to do given my expectation that I was playing a game and the apparently different view of my opponent. If you read micropol on everybody you debate as a strategy to win, I’d advise you change your strat or pref me low. I think of debate as a game but micropol can bring up very uncomfortable situations in that game where your opponent probably agrees with you but by the nature of debate is forced to disagree with you.

LARP:
I ran a lot of extinction scenarios/DA’s/CP’s and like these args. Try to make sure that the DA isn’t super far-fetched, but as long as you have legit evidence and a good link chain I’ll abide it. Same applies for CP’s and plans with util impacts. Weigh! Weigh your impacts! Weigh a lot! Weigh!

Dense Philosophy:

If you read the kind of thing that falls under this umbrella then you know it. This includes Kant, Ripstein, and any other stuff like that, but I’m also thinking of D&G. If you’re planning on reading D&G, don’t. That’s the one thing I really will be annoyed about if I hear it, I really just don’t like it. Sorry, don’t pref me high. Aside from D&G though, I’m definitely not the judge for phil stuff, not only because I don’t like it and think it tends to get away from the actual policy-relevant topic but also because I will not understand it unless you pretend I’m a 1stgrader. That’s not worth your time; it’ll take you the entire AC to get me to understand and vote on some very basic Kant stuff, at which point you’ll have no time to talk about the topic, which will probably make me mad and want to drop you even more. So probably don’t read Kant.

Updated 12.04.2021

TLDR

Background: Been judging for a long time, I'm currently a science teacher who judges sporadically during this time.

How I determine the winner: I will pick the strongest argument a round for that to determine the winner. It could come from any theory, k, or traditional style. If you are going to run a k or theory, do it well and be confident in that because I am not the most familiar in them. I strongly prefer traditional debate (like if you run traditional debate, I will appreciate 10 times more), but do what you feel will help you win the round. (More in this in the long version).

Weighing and voting issues: give me them so I know what you believe are the things I should value highly in the round. It will help you win.

Speed: speak clearly and if you speak too fast after me telling you to slow down 3 times, I will likely stop flowing. I judge what I flow, so that could cost you the round.

Respect: Be respectful of everyone.

GOOD LUCK!

LONG VERSION
Basic Information About Me:

I am a teacher and I have been judging in the circuit since I was a junior in high school for Novices, and then during my time in college I have judged here and there (so about 7 years). Most of my judging experience does come from 6 years ago, so I am not an expert in the nuances of debate.

Debate Style/Technique/Arguments

I know and understand the fundamentals of debate. Like don't go new in the 2, I know what is a turns is, what are extensions are, etc. I am aware of theory and k-shells, but don't fully understand the nuances in them. If you are going to run these things on me, I would expect that you know what you're doing and that you could "guide" me through the round as to why you're running them and why you believe that using them would help you win. I won't know if you're doing them correctly, so I am assuming that you are. If I suspect that it was not done well, then I probs won't pick you. With that being said, I do like when there is some type of traditional debate, but run what you feel most confident in or what your strongest arguments are.

I feel most comfortable and confident judging traditional style debate. It's fun for me, and if you want the best decision where I can fully defend my reasoning for decision forever, you should have a traditional style round. One thing that I do love is solvency. Please explain to me how your side solves best.

That brings me to my main point, I am not going to nitpick your "technique" in the round. However, I will nitpick the strength and delivery of your argument. I vote for whatever argument(s) hold(s) the most ground in the round. If your main argument is not the strongest argument in the round or you just weren't good at expressing why it should be, don't expect to win. Were you convincing enough? Was there a lot of evidence to support that argument? That is what I mean by strength and delivery.

Weighing and Voting Issues

Weighing and voting issues are IMPERATIVE to me. Since I do base my vote on what is the strongest argument in the round, weighing and voting issues tell me that from your perspective. We all have different experiences and backgrounds because of that, we are going to value things differently. I might value an environmental or education argument highly because of my interests and passions, but you may value a criminal justice or economic argument highly because of whatever reason. Weighing and voting issues tell me as a judge what to value and sort of how to think. When you weigh and give me voting issues, I will then look at the rest of my flow and figure out how that compares to your competitor's arguments. If you don't weigh or give me voting issues, then I will do that for you and it might not be in your best interest because it might cost you the round due to the strength of your arguments. You and I could think that your strongest arguments were 2 separate arguments and that's what could cost you the round.

Speed

We are in a pandemic and we are doing all of this virtually. With that we have to deal with potential complications of technology and wifi, and those barriers that prevent us from seeing each other in person. For that reason, I care a lot if you enunciate your words and speak clearly. I am comfortable with most speeds, but would prefer if you build up to it and don't go super sonic speed. I judge what I flow. If you are speaking too fast and/or you aren't clear, then that will be a problem. If you are speaking too fast for my comfort, I will say "Clear" or "Slow down". I expect you to slow down and stay at that speed for a little while. If I do say "clear" or "slow down" 3 times in the round, and you don't fix/adjust your speed, after the third time, I will likely stop flowing for you for the rest of the round. You will most definitely lose speaks as well, and since I judge what I flow, it might cost you the round. Don't let this happen to you.

Respect

I get that debate is competitive. I get that everyone wants to be the best and win the tournament. That in no way gives you an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponent or me. If you curse or say something transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive at any point in the round, you will lose. I will drop you with whatever is the lowest score I could give you. This comes from the moment we are all in the "room" together to the moment I submitted my decision. At no circumstances is any form of offensive language acceptable, even if it's under your breath. There are like a billion different words and phrases you can use in the English Language, you can avoid saying something offensive. I have no tolerance for this.

Facial Reactions/Expressions

One thing I've found out about myself is that I am a person who shows a lot of my emotions through my face. If I am making a face and you're wondering, "oh that doesn't look good". You're probably right. It either means I am miserable, bored, or like I am confused out of my mind. If you see those faces, I'd change your argument so you don't have to see those not so good faces.

One Final Note

Good luck to everyone! I know we are living in a crazy time right now, but you got this! Be confident in who you are as a debater and you will do well. I typically like to give a "reading test" in my paradigm, but there isn't one this time, so be happy about that. :)

Hi! I debated LD for Lexington High School for 4 years and am now a Junior at Northeastern. I have been coaching young students who are entering the debate world since then so it's been a while since I've judged. That being said, run whatever you like (and have fun). I'll vote for most things as long as they're explained clearly, I can understand them, and you are kind and respectful.

In general, I'll vote for the debater that writes my ballot for me. I only vote off of what's on MY flow, so make sure you're articulating your arguments clearly. This means you should weigh, provide voters, and as always, extend.

As a debater, I was Kritik heavy however, I ran a range of arguments when I competed. The most important thing for me is respect and kindness, I won't hesitate to dock points or vote based on inappropriate/rude behavior. I am probably most familiar with K's and least familiar with theory (never really ran it so I probably hardly understand it). I would air on the side of caution and explain everything as clearly as possible (assume I know nothing).

WHY, WHAT, and HOW: tell me WHY an argument matters, WHAT it's impact is in the round, and HOW it links to the framework/it acts as a voter.

Feel free to spread but please include me on the email chain: savidesilva@gmail.com

If you have any questions, feel free to ask :)

Hi! I debated for four years at Scarsdale High School. I won't vote on arguments that are unwarranted or clearly offensive. But aside from that, do whatever you want. Theory, K's, LARP, Framework, etc. are all fine. Just make sure to start off slow and to thoroughly explain dense arguments. Have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have judged NJ and NY tournaments.

UPDATE FOR HARVARD 2023.

For email chains: clj9264@nyu.edu

I have been both the head coach and assistant coach for Timothy Christian School for 5 years. Currently, I am not coaching because I am in grad school, but still keep up with PF resolutions. I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 3 years for Timothy Christian School. I then spent five years coaching and judging on all these levels. For the past two years, I have judged LD more than anything else but have mostly done case work in PF.

As one my old debate friends/partners has said (thnx Michael):

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS

Now back to my paradigm,

LD SPECIFIC:

A fair warning that I spent the majority of my high school debate career debating PF, but I have 50/50 judged VLD and VPF since 2017.

I have always been a judge that viewed spreading as okay, but I’ll be realistic with you saying that I haven’t judged LD in a year so I’m a little rusty. Run anything you want and run what will best help you win, but make sure to add me to any email chains and slow down for taglines. If you run a K, make sure that it is CLEARLY explained because I am not well-read on most K lit. Although, run whatever is best for you, and I should be able to adapt. I will truly flow anything you run and evaluate them in the round. However, this is also a warning that if you run anything offensive to either me or your opponent, I will not hesitate to drop you, or at the very least significantly drop your speaker points.

I will say clear a few times, but then it is up to you to remember.

While I will read anything presented to me in email chains, I still find it your responsibility to effectively communicate your speeches to both your opponent and me.

PF SPECIFIC:

Keep in mind, however, that PF has changed drastically since I graduated in 2017, although I did also debate VLD for a period of time so I have that experience to draw upon, and I have been coaching/judging PF since I graduated.

Run whatever you want but be sure to be able to engage with those who may not debate the same way as you (i.e., if you have adapted to be more of a tech debater but your opponents are not, be sure that you can still engage in traditional debate.)

As for basic debate preferences, continue reading:

Some things that are necessary for you to win any PF round, whether it be tech or traditional:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final focus, it is essential that you extend it during your summary.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important. *This does not mean I automatically vote util. I love a good framework debate (it’s the LDer in me), just let me knowwhy I ought to look to your evidence as opposed to your opponents.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Forcing me to make a decision will only result in a messy RFD and critiques. Tell me why your side is more important.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. Don't bother with an in-depth off-time roadmap, instead, just tell me where you are starting. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round, no weighing mechanisms, and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective. Do not feel the need to argue every single point. I understand that not everything can be covered in a three-minute summary speech. Instead, make smart decisions about what is necessary to win the round.

FINALLY, FOR EVERYONE:

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speaker points. Low speaks never equates a loss in my book, but speaks are important as I am sure you all know (esp during bubble rounds). As a debater who got into one to many heated discussions, I saw how that could affect my speaks. I love when debaters show that they are passionate, but that does not have to translate as being disrespectful.

Essentially, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge. It is meant to be a space where we are able to respectfully argue positions and learn from others, so make sure that every round is focused on this. Also, if you took the time to read this all and incorporate a musical theater reference into the round, this may benefit your speaks :)

I was a Circuit Debater for 4 years.

Run whatever you want I have no preference

Speed: I haven't been judging for a couple of years now so I'd say start off at 90%. I'll say clear twice before I start docking speaks.

Theory/T: Not a huge fan only run it if there's actual abuse.

K's: Was a big K debater in HS.

Don't be a jerk, be respectful

If you have any questions just ask!

Have fun!

shihab.joseph@gmail.com

Debated LD on the Local and National Circuit for Ridge High School. I now do policy in college.

Ridge '17
Northwestern '21

General
- Provided that the argument isn't offensive/discriminatory I'll vote on anything - debate is your activity do what you do best

Kritiks
- Reasonably familiar with most K args employed in debate; however, there's a huge amount of K lit so a clear explanation of how your kritik functions can only benefit you
- Links should be specific or atleast contextualized to the AFF
- Critical affirmatives with a topical plan were my favorite positions in high school

- Non-topical affirmatives are fine

Policy Esque Args
- These debates when done well are my favorite to watch
- Impact framing/comparison makes it more likely you get the decision you want
- Evidence comparison is crucial

Phil/Framework
- If this is your thing go for it
- I Know the basics of most philosophical positions but these were not my go to arguments in high school
- Clear explanations of claims and warrants for those claims are especially important in these debates
- I'd prefer that fw debates not become a bunch of preclusion arguments for me to sort through

T
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the debater, no RVI - Defaults can be changed

Theory
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the Arg, No RVI - Defaults can be changed
- Be Clear - theory analytics are hard to flow

Tricks
- Go for it
- Innovative and well thought out tricks are a plus

Speaks
- Im probably a speaks fairy - if I think you should clear your speaks will reflect that

I'd Like to be on the email chain: vkalghatgi@gmail.com

Shankar Krishnan
Ridge High School (2013-2017), UC Berkeley ('17 - '21)

reach.shankarkrishnan@gmail.com
Berkeley '20:

I don't know if this is a "west coast debate" thing or something, but if your opponent is clearly inexperienced or a traditional debater, don't be disrespectful and make their experience terrible. For example, don't scoff in CX if they don't understand esoteric debate lingo, don't spread on them if they can't understand it, don't read frivolous theory on them, etc etc. A lack of decency will lead me to dock your speaks.

Paradigm for NCFL:
Unless if the whole panel is "tech," I will judge like an average NCFL judge:
1. I will flow only things that I think are important
2. Persuasion, presence, and eye contact matter a lot to me
3. I don't care for speed.
4. Don't expect me to make the correct "tab" decision, I'll strive to be unexpected
5. Debate is a game of judge adaptation. The judge can never make the wrong decision

Otherwise look below:

New Paradigm (old one is still at the bottom for reference if you want):

1. Do whatever you'd like as long as you don't make arguments that reinforce oppressive norms
2. I have found that I give speaks based on strategy and creativity. This also means I want to see YOU debate, not just read prewritten responses. I give good speaks to people not robots.
3. I have a pretty low threshold for extensions and warrants but I need you to extend individual arguments not sets of arguments; examples of what you shouldn't do:

• "extend the framework"
• "extend all the arguments about _"
• "extend the offense"

4. I defer to cross-ex over in-round arguments (if by the end of cx you have misconstrued your own arguments to your opponent ill stick by those)
5. I have biases just like any other judge but hopefully they're not egregious enough to affect the round - if they are then I will add them to the paradigm


Feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

2017-18 Paradigm (Outdated):

After judging for the first time, I have realized some things.
1. I am a classic FYO judge
2. I am a speak fairy - i average like 29.3
3. I will no longer vote on an argument if I can't explain even a semblance of a warrant back to you because otherwise I will squirrel

Short Version 1. What "type" of arguments did they read as a debater?

I read a lot of types of arguments during my debate career, from tricks my sophomore year to kritiks and performance arguments my junior year to reading more LARP oriented positions my senior year, and read traditional arguments throughout my career.

2. What are their qualifications/experience as a debater?

I debated 4 years at Ridge High School in NJ on both progressive and traditional circuits. In my career I competed at 16 bid tournaments, got to 10 bid rounds, and got 6 bids, qualifying to TOC twice. I had a winning record at TOC junior year and got 3rd at NSDA nationals my senior year.


3. What arguments will they evaluate?
Anything excluding arguments that exclude people or are offensive.

4. What arguments do they "like"?

I have this very nebulous concept of “creativity in debate,” by which I mean I like arguments that are “creative.” Honestly, I myself do not know what criteria I use to determine what is “creative,” but do know that if I find your argument to be creative then I will give you higher speaks. Most of the time the arguments I think are creative are the ones most people call “stupid,” so take that as you will.

5. What are other paradigms to reference?

I was either coached by these people at some point or really enjoyed having them as a judge so I might judge like them --
- Bailey Rung
- Jack Wilson
- Arianna Montero-Colbert
- Christian Quiroz
-Matthew Pregasen
- Benjamin Koh
- Michael Stewart
- Adam Tomasi
- Yana Kropotova

6. What are their defaults?

I don't default anything I think if a layer is irresolvable I'll just move to the next highest layer and if I can't move lower I don't know what I'll do I'll figure it out as it comes along.

Random Paradigm Stuff

Theory vs Kritik
To quote Brother Martin Page, “The debate between theory and K is a pre-fiat impact calculus—your weighing between theory and a role-of-the-ballot should be a comparison of impacts within the debate space.” I find most “theory is oppressive because it sets a rule” arguments to be quite silly (although I read them 99% of the time when I read a K against theory). Just weigh them against each other.

Implicit Clash:
I think that explicitly evaluating implicit clash is silly and goes way too much into the realm of intervention for me to be comfortable. However, I inevitably may end up evaluating some implicit clash, and thus I want to give some comments on what I view as implicit clash and what I do not.
Let us say you read a kritik, and one of the pieces of link evidence is tagged as indicting all of the theory shells in the aff, as in “all theoretical shells in the aff link” or something along those lines. Just because that piece of evidence is not crossapplied to every theory evidence in the aff does not mean that it is implicit clash to me if it is extended as being a link to all theory. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that this is very explicit clash, as the argument is basically an overview on theory.
Now let us say that you make an implication that performance comes before all of the 1AC arguments because performance is how we present arguments which precludes the evaluation of the content of the arguments. Again, I do not think it is an extension of implicit clash to claim in the 2NR that performance precludes the 1AR extension of a 1AC paragraph shell because the warrant of the argument made in the 1NR is that performance precludes the evaluation of the content of arguments (theory is an argument), and the argument was implicated as coming before all 1AC arguments (a 1AC paragraph shell is a 1AC argument).
However, let us say that you read Foucault and read a card as to why truth is subjective. Let us say the 1AC extends rule following skep to say that all role of the ballots are infinitely meetable. I think it is implicit clash for me to say that Foucault says truth is subjective, so rule-following skep doesn’t apply because Foucault doesn’t claim to have a static rule but says that rules are constantly changing based on hegemonic structures.
Maybe I am conflating implicit clash and just blatant intervention. Honestly, if you think I evaluated implicit clash or intervened in the first two scenarios, maybe I don’t know what implicit clash is. If somebody can convince me otherwise then I’ll change my perspective.

Thoughts about Kritiks:
- I think that every speech is a performance, so I find arguments that claim that “performance is key” and you vote off of the “1AC because it is a performance” to be silly. However, if you claim that narratives are key to solvency because we need empathy to realize the true harm of a situation, that’s a different story.

- Unlike other judges, I think reject alts are very sufficient. I have no problem voting off of reject alts and your speaks will not suffer. However, I do believe alternatives should be carded (This does not apply if you extemp a kritik. If you extemp an analytically warranted kritik and win the round, I will be hard pressed to not give you a 30).


-I do not think that tricks and kritiks are mutually exclusive, in that you can read kritikal tricks. Honestly, these types of debate make me the most happy as I think that they hold the most potential for creativity both in terms of the literature and the application of arguments.

Some quick and important stuff for the 2020 virtual season (full paradigm and bio is below and unbolded):

1. I'm happy to listen to and vote on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, tricks, etc. (pretty much all the standard LD stuff). I also tend to have a pretty good ear for speed so that shouldn't be an issue.

2. I've noticed that I tend to evaluate debates pretty technically. The debaters that tend to perform best in front of me (no matter which types of arguments they are reading) are very good on the line-by-line but are also able to do bigger picture weighing and argument interaction. This basically means I'm very skeptical of embedded clash so I'm willing to vote on shorter arguments if they're dropped or mishandled but those arguments needed to be weighed and interacted with the other important arguments in the round.

I debated for Scarsdale High School for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I also coached Scarsdale for 2 years and taught at NSD for two summers.

I will vote on any argument that has a warrant that at least somewhat follows from the claim and is impacted back to an evaluative mechanism deemed important in the round. I have no preference for any one type of argumentation: this means that you can feel comfortable reading framework, LARP, Ks, theory, tricks, etc. in front of me. You should do what you do best and feel is most strategic in the given round.

Framework: These debates are enjoyable, but they can get very messy if both sides are just extending preclusive arguments and not doing much interaction. Weighing between framework warrants will be extremely helpful if you want to win a framework debate in front of me. Also, you should make clear what impacts matter under your framework (i.e. whether it is ends-based or means-based).

LARP: Good evidence comparison and impact weighing are the keys here and will be rewarded.

Ks: I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.

Theory: Please slow down while reading interp texts so that I actually understand what shell you are reading. Absent any arguments to the contrary by the debaters in-round, I default to competing interps and no RVIs. All voters (even fairness and education) need to be justified. I will not vote on new 2AR theory or a 2AR RVI to a new 2NR shell (I will vote on new 2NR shells however if they are won).

Tricks: They need to be impacted to something, even if it is not a standard. Likely tricks will link to a role of the ballot (i.e. truth testing) which means that if your opponent wins an opposing role of the ballot they may have no impact.

kevinli35@berkeley.edu

Hi I’m Kevin! I debated LD for Stuyvesant High School from 2014-2018. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I was coached by Paul Zhou, Ananth Panchanadam, and Dino De La O.

Conflicts: Stuyvesant, Mission San Jose, William Enloe AC, Poly Prep DB, Bergen County Academies MS, Westlake AL

*pleaseplease try not to have a full out larp debate in front of me-- I'm not gonna be great at judging it. If that's what you do it's fine, but I don't feel super confident at resolving those debates when they are close.

*Note for more traditional debaters: do your thing, just wanna make a note that I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better, and will vote for them if you win them.

To give a little context, as a debater I read a lot of nonT/K/Performance Asian American affs, Wilderson, Weheliye, Barber, and T/theory. I was probably least familiar with phil debate.

Tech > Truth. I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.) The most important thing is impacting and explicit implication work. Especially if the content is something I'm less familiar with, I will be pretty dependent on you doing the work to tell me what I should do with what argument.

If you need me to make note of something that was said or conceded in CX please explicitly get my attention even if it looks like I'm listening because I space out a lot.

If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

Defaults (these 100% change when arguments are made in the round):

Truth Testing

C/I

DTA

No RVIs

If I need to presume and no argument has been made either way I will do a fancy coin flip

Literally anything is fine as long as whatever you extend has a claim warrant and impact

Have fun and read arguments that are important and interesting to you!

Speaks Boosts:

Creative Strategy

Making debate fun and enjoyable

Being really knowledgeable about your content

High Uber Ratings

30s are for pleasant and wholesome surprises

These are my views on debate as of now. If you wholly disagree with my paradigm I am open to criticism and I'd be willing to have a conversation about how I should change it.

*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*

Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.

I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.

**ONLINE DEBATE:

-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol

-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech

-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues

-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent

*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*

Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!

Email: limichelle0809@gmail.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).

Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:

-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.

-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)

-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.

Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:

-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be

-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion

-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round

-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room

Specifics:

K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.

-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.

-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.

-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)

-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.

-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense

-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)

-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!

Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.

Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.

Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards

-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.

-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's

-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.

T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.

Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:

-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.

-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.

-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.

Tricks:

-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)

-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.

-Please number your analytics

-I like creative/trolly a priori’s

-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)

Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !

-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)

LARP: please please please weigh!!

-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.

-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation

-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky

-I like plan flaw

I debated LD at Stuyvesant High School for four years and graduated in 2019.

Email: claireliu333@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

**Updated for Lex 2022**

I have minimal experience judging LD on Zoom so please be clearer & slower than usual.

General:

1. I'm willing to vote on any argument that I understand excluding offensive ones.

2. If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you.

3. Please don't make me judge a messy tricks debate. I don't like debates that are entirely predicated on your opponent missing an argument.

4. I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the debate after the 1ac" if it's made in the 1ac. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes evaluating the debate solely after one speech and will have a low threshold for responses.

Speaks:

1. Generally, good arg gen, topic knowledge, smart CX, and efficiency are what I reward most. Please don't make your entire rebuttal speech prewritten.

2. I don't disclose speaks.

Nicholas Newton-Cheh

Lexington High School '18 UChicago '22

Email: nnewtoncheh@gmail.com

Please include me in an email chain

General:

- Most common args I ran were Affro-pessimism, K affs, policy affs with TJFs, spec, T. Favorite arg was Affropess, but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to vote for it.

- Speed is fine. I'll yell clear but too many times and I'll dock speaks.

- Tech>Truth

- Manage your own prep, compiling speech docs is prep, emailing/flashing isn’t.

- Comfort level: (most comfortable) Kritikal debates (K vs Policy aff, K vs. K aff, K vs. Phil) > LARP and theory/T debates >phil/tricks (least comfortable).

- Debaters who want to read dense phil or nail bomb, spike-laden affs should pref me lower.

K:

- Love good K debates, hate bad ones. I have a high threshold - know your literature, execute effective strategy

- Reasonably familiar with most K's

- K debate should be technical

- The more dense the K lit, the more explanation required

- Prefer specific links over generics

- Clear articulation of the alt is key - Alt's tend to be the weakest part of the K and w/o them most K's are non-unique disads

LARP/Policy

- Pay more than lip service to framing

- Pls do evidence and impact comparison

- Give me a good overview and collapse effectively - Make it easy for me to evaluate the round

Theory/T

- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop the arg, text>spirit, meta-theory>theory, fairness and education are voters.

- Defaults are stupid

- Read that interp nice and slow. Also be extra clear with standards + warrants as I can only flow so fast. The blippier the arg, the clearer and slower it should be read.

-Give good overviews in last speech.

- Do good weighing - same idea as my larp section, make it easy for me to vote eval the round/vote for you.

Tricks

- I dislike tricks. As a result, I have a low threshold to answering blippy tricks args. You can read tricky args and still engage in a somewhat substantive debate (e.g. I'll vote off a floating PIK) but if your case is 20+ hidden spikes in a 90% analytic phil FW, I'll be annoyed.

-I will vote on tricks but I am less likely to give you a lot of leeway.

Phil

- I wasn't really a phil debater in HS - only really read Kant NC's in phil debates.

- Do a good job explaining and ideally don't just read a bunch of preclusion args the I have to wade through.

- Plagiarizing a friend's paradigm, assume that "my understanding [of your FW] will solely depend on your ability to explain it."

MISC:

- Speaks average a 28 (I'm pretty generous with speaks) - I don't disclose speaks

- Clipping means intentionally or blatantly claiming to have read something you didn't (be it an analytic in a speech doc or the second half of a card that you didn't mark). It doesn't mean stumbling over a few words. The penalty for misrepresenting evidence or clipping is a loss with 0 speaks. If you initiate an evidence ethics challenge and are wrong the penalty shall be applied to you instead.

- Default to ethical confidence (you can argue ethical modesty tho), presume neg, risk of offense, CX is binding. Defaults will be overridden by in round args.

- Low threshold for extensions. A nice overview at the top of a rebuttal is sufficient. But if you expect to win off an impact and don't mention it at all in your speech, it probably won't be evaluated.

I am a senior from Harrison High School in Harrison, NY. Sorry if I'm late to round I was probably eating banana bread in the judge's lounge:)

Read whatever you want as long as your warrants are clear and explained. Signpost, weigh, give me voters and the round will be as painless as possible for both of us.

Harrison High School '17
Georgetown University '20
Raffipiliero@gmail.com

Harvard update: I've been out of debate for over a year, so my old paradigm is not as applicable - I'm far less ideological about argument content now that I'm not involved. However, I've left it here for reference.

I'll keep this brief-ish, since nobody enjoys reading these things. Do what you want and you will be fine - I probably place a greater premium on clarity/structure than most, but otherwise just have the debate you'd like.

But for (slightly) more detail: I'll just list 5 things to know about me:

1) Experience

I was very involved in debate for a 9-year stretch (2012-2021) in both LD and Policy, as both a coach and competitor (was in TOC elims/NDT elims, led DebateDrills coaching for 5 years, etc.). I debated mostly on the national circuit and read mostly policy arguments, with some Kritik arguments sprinkled in.

However, I haven't been at all involved lately: I haven't judged for 2 years and haven't thought about debate at all for 1+ years.

Currently, I work full-time at Harvard on foreign policy and international security-related work, so I'll be very up on anything related to current events/politics/foreign policy/etc. But I have not thought about the topic or cut cards on it.

So: you don't need to slow down, and I trust myself to still flow well/keep up with whatever debate you want to have. But, I don't bring any knowledge of the topic or any "meta" since 2021, so it will behoove you to explain any new concepts well.

2) Hard rules

The only rules I have are ones that I expect to never be relevant: No "isms," nothing that makes the debate unsafe, etc.

The only thing that may be slightly different for me than other judges is that I won't evaluate personal attacks/accusations about out of round behavior. So: nothing about the opponents' preferences, appearance, behavior, etc. If you're not sure, ask before the round - I will also make it obvious that I'm not flowing if this happens.

Otherwise, it's your debate and you should expect me to be a disinterested/neutral audience.

3) Views on form

I did college policy, so speed is absolutely fine. You won't go too fast for me. However, in a significant percentage of debates I judge, clarity is an issue. If I can't understand every word you say on tags and the vast majority on cards, I'll let you know. If I have to keep saying clear, don't expect good speaks.

Debate is a communication activity - I could never understand why some judges flow off the speech doc, pretend they understood arguments they couldn't flow, etc. So: do prioritize clarity in both delivery and structure. No judge will ever complain that you numbered your arguments, slowed down and inflected, etc. These things are essential to comprehension.

Too many speeches are scripted. If you're "autopiloting" a significant portion of the 2NR/2AR without responding to your opponents' arguments, your speaks won't be great. I'll consciously give you better points if you give a 2NR/2AR without your laptop.

4) Views on content

The biggest thing I can emphasize is that you should have the debate you want to have. My defaults are just that: defaults. Debating can change any of my views. That being said, all of us have biases, so I'll try to be upfront about them.

I'm theoretically fine with any type of debate you want to have (Kritik, Policy, etc.). The only strong views I have are ostensibly content-agnostic: I place a lot of weight on evidence, and I probably apply a stronger threshold than most in what counts as an argument. If I can't explain it back to the other team, I won't vote for it even if "dropped." But: this may make me worse for tricks debate, unevidenced Kritik arguments, etc. - I don't harbor an ideological bias against them per se, but given my preferences for explanation/evidence, they may be less likely to succeed.

If history is any guide, I've historically judged a lot of policy vs. policy debates, and a fair number of "clash" debates. I'm probably best at judging those debates, and worse at judging K vs. K debates. If you're a K team in a clash round, you shouldn't worry that my policy background will hurt you. If anything, I think most policy teams aren't very good at answering K arguments, and I'm probably 50/50 on how I vote in T/Framework debates.

5) Speaker points

I probably average around a 28-28.5, but will go as low as 27 and high as 29.5. I'll shamelessly inflate speaks if you're clear, give structured speeches, and debate off your flow and not a script. And no, you can't ask for a 30.

Hey!

I'm going to keep this short, so if you have any questions about judging preferences, debate background, whatever, just ask me before starting the round!

I graduated from Bronx Science in 2017, and haven't been involved with debate since. What that means is that I will probably not be able to follow you if you spread a 1000 words a minute. However, in high school I was a circuit debater (qualled to Toc, blah blah, all the usual flexes), and mostly did K debate. What does that mean for you? You should adapt by slowing down, but you feel free to debate in whatever style you're most comfortable with. No judge is truly unbiased, so I'll just be upfront about the fact that I'm way more likely to be persuaded by interesting Role of the Ballot arguments (and critical debate in general) than a T-interp or theory shell.

Bottom line: literally just debate however you are most comfortable, but be aware of the fact that I have not listened to a debate round since the last time I debated (four years ago). While I'm sure a lot has changed in debate, I'm sure a lot has remained the same, and so I feel compelled to point out that I will not tolerate any type of disrespectful behavior during round. If you are blatantly rude to your opponent, that will not fare you well. Similarly, if you make problematic arguments, even if your opponent does not point them out, that will also be to your detriment.

Tldr: Have fun, be respectful, and debate whatever/however you want to (but slowly).

*** For Yale 2020

I haven't judged since Harvard, so I'm not too sure what LD looks like now. Go like 70% speed (even lower with Zoom) and make the rounds interesting and easy to evaluate. Also, I don't know the common args right now so please have good explanations.

Email chains: danielshahab01@gmail.com

I debated for Princeton High School from 2016-2019, primarily in the Northeast, accumulating three bids and qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Pronouns: he/his.

My career and the way I think about debate has been influenced by the following: Matthew Chen; Sam Azbel; Muhammad Khattak; Ari Azbel; Nina Potischman; Chris Sun; Zoe Ewing.

Top Level

1. reading a card doesn't mean you read a warrant - especially true with a lot of implausible disads and contrived K links. too many cards are unwarranted as hell and while I won't auto-reject a card for not having a warrant, I will reward debaters who do a good job explaining why their opponent's card is crap with high speaks

2. good K debating is good case debating. Please please please explain your links and the theory of the K in the context of the aff advantage/how they implicate solvency. This doesn’t mean saying “K turns case because ontology blah blah blah”, it means pointing out missing internal links in aff solvency / advantage areas and doing warrant comparison as to why the K explains the aff impacts more. For example: “ending aid to Tajikistan doesn’t actually solvd the drug war since their evidence doesn’t account for alt causes like political incentive and Russian influence which proves the Aff is just structural adjustment - that’s a better explanation of the world since it accounts for unconscious racial bias in Tajik citizens which the 1AC solvency doesn’t have any game on” is a far more convincing way to implicate the K v case debate than just saying “ontology outweighs” “state bad” or “fiat illusory” over and over

3. the words "independent voter" mean nothing to me. unless you actually take the time to warrant why the issue you bring up comes above all other issues/I should evaluate no other interaction, I'm going to treat your 2-line blip that becomes the entire 2n/2ar as on the same layer as any other argument

4. going with the trend of not voting on poorly warranted buzzwords, I have found that many analytics get too short to qualify as arguments - especially on theory. At the point where your drop the debater warrants are literally "1) deterrence 2) rectify time lost on theory 3) sets good norms" and then nothing else, you haven't made an argument. If you want me to vote for something, I need to understand the warrant without assuming prior knowledge of your arguments.

5. tech over truth. nonetheless, if your argument is really bad, the threshold for what counts as a response goes drastically down

6. you can ask questions during prep, but you can't use your remaining CX time as prep time

7. I’ll vote on whatever you tell me to unless it’s blatantly offensive like rape good, racism good or doesn’t have a warrant.

8. slow down on tags and author names

9. I’ll evaluate warrants based on what they justify – for example, if you read defense but call it a turn, I’ll only evaluate it as defense unless you explain why it is a turn warrants need to be fully fleshed out and extrapolated by the final speech. i won't hesitate to say "i don't understand what your warrant is" in my rfd - debate is a communicative activity so it's the burden of a debater to make their point clear.

10. weigh as early as you can "i.e. disad ow case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar". and don't go for everything in the 2nr/2ar if you want me to be able to resolve the round - collapse to 1-2 args and WEIGH instead of extending like 10 random cheap-shots and hoping one sticks.

11. I’ll say clear as much as necessary, won’t deduct speaks but if I didn’t flow something in the original speech I won’t hesitate to say so in my RFD

12. I don’t flow along on the speech doc - rephrased: signpost and be clear

13. disclosure is probably good.

14. flashing isn’t prep, but compiling everything into one doc is prep

15. personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations.

along those lines, please be respectful. i understand that debate is stressful, and i like debaters who are passionate and confident. however, there is such a thing as being too mean. for example, if you yell at your opponent to "sit the fuck down, you asshole" or something like that don't expect good speaks. there's no brightline for this, so I'll warn you and tell you to stop the first few times, but if you don't stop, i reserve the right to drop you

evidence ethics

stolen from grant brown:

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.

Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.

Preferences: I'll enjoy any style of debate done well and I will try to be as un-biased as possible. Debate is your game, and I'm not going to insert my opinions. That being said, I inevitably do have ideological beliefs, so here they are if you want to see. Ultimately though, my favorite debaters are those who are flexible and can debate any style well, but prefer to read arguments that engage the core of the topic. That means I’d prefer a topic specific K with links to the plan over a contrived generic rider DA even though I generally lean on the policy side of the topic.

policy ----------X------------------- K

fiat is illusory/bad ----------------------------X- don't care/it's good

util -------------X---------------- phil

theory --------------X--------------- substance

competing interps ------------------X----------- reasonability (without brightline is better - I think BL's are horrible)

aff ground -------X---------------------- limits

absolute semantics ------------------X----------- subsets are a sufficient interp of the res

fairness is an impact ----X------------------------- Delgado 92 (this also just isn't an argument - make better impact turns)

t is violent/oppressive/genocide ----------------------------X- Anderson 6

my K aff solves violence -------------------X---------- presumption

5 plank combo shells -----------------------X------no

comparative weighing/strength of link ---X-------------------------- generic weighing

shells on same layer ---X-------------------------- neg flex means ignore 1ar theory

eval theory debate before any speech that isn't the 2ar ---------------------------X-- this isn't an argument

reading cards ---------------------------X-- line by lining warrants

lots of meh, short evidence --------------------------X--- good, fewer cards

will read all the ev -----------------X------------ will read no ev

politics DA is fake -------------------X---------- (good) politics DA is real

probabilistic uniqueness ---------X-------------------- absolute uniqueness

nuanced risk analysis ---------X-------------------- "my disad outweighs bc bostrom"

listens to spin -----X------------------------ won't evaluate spin

condo bad -------------------------X---- condo good

CP theory ---------------------X-------- lit determines legitimacy

"insert this re-highlighting" ----------------------------X- i read what you read

framework comparison --------X--------------------- lots of assertions and blips everywhere

syllogisms ----X------------------------- preclusion blips

K in context of aff --------X--------------------- generic links

empirics/contingency good------X----------------------- ontology/structural claims good

perm double bind ------X----------------------- your 5 perm blips

tricks ----------X------------------- no tricks

aprioris --------------------------X--- boring

NIB's/burden stuff/contingent standards ------X----------------------- hates anything that isn't comparing worlds

being upfront --X--------------------------- being sketchy in cx.

I debated for four years for Stuyvesant High School (graduated in 2017) in Lincoln Douglas and I have recently decided to step back into the debate community as a judge. My senior year I bid to the TOCs at Scarsdale Invitational and made it to bid round at Yale, along with out rounds at a few other tournaments.

Short Summary:

Tabula Rasa

I don't want my judging philosophy to interfere at all with the round, please do whatever you are comfortable with, at whatever speed you would like. I did debate recently (relatively) so I can understand spreading. I have a good understanding of most types of argumentation and most of the common arguments in the circuit, but no knowledge of this topic whatsoever. The line is drawn at being offensive or being rude to your opponent. Being offensive will result in my signing the ballot, being rude will dramatically affect your speaker points.

Logistics:

Please email me both cases and anything you will be reading off of your laptop, my email is aleksandar.shipetich18@my.stjohns.edu. Feel free to go full speed on this I will flow off your speech doc if I miss anything, but you really should put verbal emphasis on important arguments and warrants in cards.

All the technicalities and stuff like T = Theory and etc.. don't really matter to me if you explain your arguments and understand how they function, since labeling stuff really shouldn't affect how it interacts in the round

Show up on time for your rounds, I know everyone is prepping and desperately bugging their coaches, however this is not an excuse to delay the tournament. I will penalize your speaker points for showing up late. Lets say one point for every five minutes to be extremely clear (unless there is some ridiculous circumstance which you may explain to me) It really screws everyone over to still be debating really late at night so I do feel this is justified.

All dropped arguments still need to be extended and impacted to be evaluated, and every single argument in the round must be impacted for me to evaluate it. Failing to do this will just make it difficult to resolve the round. This is obvious but whatever. Weigh stuff too or the slightest bit of weighing from the other side will win the round no matter how bad

Also please label your cases clearly, having things like Part One is the Link is super helpful to everyone in the round including me. Even if you are reading something super performative and kritiky, the only way this is going to work out for me is if you do a ridiculously good job explaining and impacting in the later speeches but having structure is really helpful for me in general

If you have any questions before the round you need urgently, please email me. I will be on my phone so a fast response can be expected.

Also, just saying, there's a line between being aggressive and asserting yourself and being rude. If you aren't sure where that line is, maybe err on the side of caution and don't be aggressive. I really have no tolerance for people being asshats during debate rounds and it just gets in the way of what could otherwise have been a good debate

Some advice on appealing to me as a judge:

I did debate recently but speed is not my forte. This doesn't mean don't spread, this means don't shoot through the 1AR/2NR and assume I caught everything. I can remember and understand the last few sentences you said if you clearly signpost and leave a little pause before moving to the next argument, so speed should not be a limiting factor. I would prefer that you go down the flow and don't jump around a lot, but it is your decision as a debater as to how you organize your speeches. In general, speaking clearly and making sure all your points are heard, in addition to not being messy will result in a better speech and ultimately a greater chance at winning, no matter the judge.

Finally, my personal bias: as a debater in high school I read all types of arguments, Theory, Topicality, Kritiks, Policy and thats pretty much all of the categories. Towards the end of my career I was kritik heavy; specifically anthropocentrism.

I AM NOT AN ANTHRO HACK I SWEAR. I will evaluate it like any other argument on the flow. plus if you a crappy job reading it I will tank your speaks 4 being fake. That being said, if you do enjoy reading anthro though please pref me a 1, I will have a great time (no speaks boost tho) (ok this may be a lie).Speaker points scale:

Lauren Singer (She/her/hers)

I debated for Scarsdale from 2014-2017, so I'm an absolute dinosaur and don't know about any current circuit norms. But very excited to be back judging again! As a debater, I received 3 TOC bids my senior year and attended the New York state tournament most years.

Please read any argument (within reason, obviously) in any style you want, from Ks to traditional debate to 30 a prioris. As a debater, I mostly read theory, tricks, and the occasional cap K.

I'm pretty sure I'll remember how to evaluate rounds pretty well, but because of my dinosaur status, it will probably serve you very well to start/end as many of your speeches as possible with a not super fast overview that tells me exactly how to evaluate the round

Looking forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

Hi! I am Brian Sussman and I am a LD debater from Scarsdale HS. 

I have been doing debate for four years so I am pretty up to date with all forms of arguments and speeds

1) Speed: 

I am pretty good with speed, but I am human. I am not scared to say "clear" in round. The first time I say clear there is no penalty, but each time after .1 to .3 speaker points may be  deducted. 

2) Theory: 

I love theory! I default to no RVI, drop the arg, and reasonability, but of course if good arguments are made for other evaluation methods I will vote off them. In theory it is easy for the round to get messy - make sure to clearly weigh and sign post. I won't gut check unless the theory is very frivolous or the I meet is insanely sketchy "I am not debater I am Brian Sussman, so I don't meet." 

3) Ks: 

I never loved K debates, but that has no effect on how I judge them. I don't have a preset on what comes 1st the theory or the K. I will be honest if your K is very complex take time to explain it clearly in CX and in the rebuttals. I might not understand it the way you want me to. I usually know what you're talking about if it's post fiat or a stock pre fiat K. I always love a good ROB debate so again weighing is key.  

4) FW: 

I'll be honest I am an Util guy, but I understand other FWs pretty well (Kant, Levinas, discourse...). If you are running a complicated FW explain it in CX and rebuttals. I like Skep don't be scared to trigger it!

5) Contentions: 

To get a win and maximum speaker points: weigh, sign post, properly label args (don't call everything a turn), be able to give clear and concise voters. 

6) Final thoughts: 

Know your opponent. Please do not run 5 theory shells on a novice that will not be able to defend him/herself. Also run things YOU understand. Just because the best debater on your team gave you his/her case does not mean you should read it. Do not extend past each other - in round clash is good. Finally, if you can say the word "brouhaha" in proper context in round you get +.2 speaker points. 

Hey! I’m Ananta (she/her/hers), and I debated for 4 years in LD at Scarsdale High School, serving as captain my senior year. I have taught at NSD during the 2018 & 2019 summers & TDC during 2019, 2020, and 2021. I just graduated from UCLA where I majored in Molecular, Cell, Developmental Biology and minored in Musicology. Go Bruins!

Greenhill 2022 Update: Hello Hello - I am now literally a college graduate, so debate has become a distant memory for me. I literally have not judged in over a year. Keeping that in mind, please slow downnn A LOT, explain everything to me in a beautiful ballot story in your later speeches, and remember that I have not kept up with recent metas at ALL, so if you want to do something new and novel, go for it - v exciting - but please take time to make sure you have caught me up too as I promise you, I will not be able to respond and evaluate effectively otherwise. Thanks so much - good luck with the season everyone!

Stanford 2021 Update: Hi all! I hope everyone is holding up well. This tournament is my first time judging since last summer and my first tournament judging in the online format. While I still hold all my previous beliefs, I definitely would need you all be to a bit slower, emphasize clarity, writing ballot stories, and I'm sure everything will go great. Enjoy & stay safe! :)

WIN Debate Tournament 2020 Update: Hello! I am super excited to be part of this tourney and to support women in debate. I just wanted to say that while I hold all my beliefs and can still competently evaluate rounds, I have not thought about debate in 4 months, and I would implore you to keep that in mind when I judge you, but again, I am super excited, and I am always down to help out/teach/give advice if anyone wants some - just send me an email. Have fun! Stay Safe! Social Distance!

Harvard Westlake 2020 Update: I still hold most if not all of past beliefs. I do, however, ask that if you do get me as a judge at HWL this weekend, a) go for what you are best at because I am a bit sick of people just reading theory in front of me because I read it a bunch and doing it poorly. I can evaluate and like evaluating everything equally at this point, b) be SUPER clear - my flowing and hearing abilities are not what they used to be (thanks to genetics, headphones, and being a bit removed from the activity) so I would really appreciate it, c) explicitly extend, and d) have fun! Thank you :)

The short of it: The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory, tricks (mostly theoretical tricks) framework, and kritiks, but that doesn’t mean I am unable to evaluate other forms of debate, I’ll just have a bit less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. I am open to voting on pretty much any argument as long as it has a warrant that is clearly articulated. Please go for all your nontopical K affs, frivolous theory, and tricks but you still have to win them technically like any other argument.

Feel free to reach out about any questions you might have about my paradigm or in general about debate - I am always down to help out, give reading or drill recs, and be a resource!

Email (yes, put me on the chain, I am a terrible flower): ananta.wadhwa@gmail.com

Conflicts: Scarsdale, LHP

Now, onto specifics:

Theory -

I love this type of debate and towards the end of my career, I went for theory pretty much every round. I find these debates to be so much fun, engaging, and I am most comfortable evaluating these types of debates. I default to drop the debater, competing interps and no RVI, but that's only if no other argument is made on either side for an alternate paradigm. Also, unless specified in a speech, I don’t think I-meets trigger the RVI, but I am definitely willing to vote on it if you tell me why I should. Also, please weigh really explicitly between shells, standards, etc. Theory debates get super messy and blippy really easily, and I want to be able to evaluate correctly.

Ks -

These are another type of argument that I am quite familiar with as I read quite a few cap Ks and Deleuze Ks in my time. I will probably know most of the common K literature so you don’t need to be that worried about me not knowing it. I think a good K debate consists of a lot of specific weighing as to why your advocacy is better in this instance. K debate can easily become an oppression Olympics, so I would be cognizant of that when you read Ks.

Framework -

A good framework debate will make me smile as it’s a dying art, but a part of debate that I found totally educational and will probably be able to evaluate. I read a lot of Agonism, Kant, & Butler as a debater. I am familiar with most philosophers even pomo and all, but if you want to read for example, some super non canon frameworks such as Baudrillard, please understand that you will have to take sometime explaining it to me in your speeches so that I will feel comfortable and be able to vote on it.

Tricks -

I was decently tricky as a debater and read a good amount of truth testing, NIBs, a prioris, etc. If tricks debate is executed well, I will be impressed, thrilled, and give high speaks. I debated a lot of Good Samaritan paradox and Rodl but never really read it so just make sure you explain why these are offense for you, why they outweigh, etc. I am not the best flower in the world so just be sure to really articulate blips clearly and if something super important happens like the concession of an a priori, to slow down a bit and make sure I have it. Side note: I will not dock speaks for winning on the a priori as I think that’s a legit strategy, but it would be a lot better if you had other sources of offense too.

Util -

This type of debate is the type that I am least familiar with but after being on the West Coast for the last year, I definitely think I know what's up, the common Util tips and tricks, and don't mind judging them. I taught and evaluated it a bunch at camp too so I definitely think I have a stronger basis in it than I did as a debater, but I never really larped after half way through my sophomore year. That being said, if you want to larp in front of me, go for it as I can competently evaluate these types of debate given that you WEIGH (cannot emphasize this enough) and differentiate between your weighing I.e. meta weighing - tell me if magnitude or time frame is more important and why, articulate your impacts I.e. extinction vs whatever, and are clear in your ballot story.

Other Important Notes:

1. I presume AFF if there is no offense left in the round and no other presumption argument is presented to me - gotta correct for that side bias.

2. If you are rude or offensive in ANY way, I will be annoyed or not just angry, stop the round, tank your speaks, give you a stern lecture, tell your coach, and drop you. Just don’t make debate what it shouldn’t be and enjoy the activity PLEASE. Also, be nice to novices, you don't have to not spread or change your strategies too much, just be kind and understanding because you were once a novice too and we should encourage everyone to enjoy and partake in the activity! I probably will lower speaks if you are being absolutely ridiculous and rude to a novice.

3. I think trigger warnings are probably a good norm in debate, but if you don’t read them, I won’t have a problem or really pay it much attention unless a) your opponent is having a problem with it or b) your opponent reads arguments as to why you should be dropped for not reading them - I will vote on those.

4. I am willing to vote on disclosure theory, and I don’t really have strong opinions on it - you do you! I think it can be really strategic, but I also think reading disclosure against a small school debater who doesn’t even know what the wiki is is a bad practice. While I will vote on it, I’ll probably be irritated, and your speaks will probably reflect that annoyance.

5. I will not vote on racism, sexism, oppression, etc. good - I’ll just ignore it when I evaluate offense and do some part of what I said I would do in the 2 point of this section. I also don't think it has to be justified that one of the above isms is an bad impact.

6. I am slightly peeved by blips such as "evaluate the debate after the AC" or something along those lines. While I will vote on these types of arguments, they do make me cringe A LOT and your speaks will suffer a bit if this is what you end up winning on.

7. Update based on some arguments I have heard recently: If something is "condo" and you kick it, I think the whole argument including framing, the advocacy, etc. goes away - it's like that part of the flow never happened. Unless you explicitly explain to me why I still can/should look to that flow as an argument in the round even if it was kicked, I don't think I can vote on it because I do not think that is what condo means. I am willing to vote on these types of arguments, I just think I need a pretty coherent why its true.

8. I don't think compiling docs needs to be done during prep unless it gets super unreasonable/seems sketch, then I'll ask you to use prep to do the rest.

Speaker Points:

I'm probably a speaks fairy! I reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution in the round. Most importantly just have fun and don’t take debate too seriously. I loved debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :) I will award higher speaker points if you make a clever and NOT offensive joke (if you are offensive, you can refer to the 2nd point in the section above). I'm a pretty easy going person. Let’s just make debate less toxic, more fun, and super educational. You are free to ask me questions about debate, UCLA, life, etc.

Hi my name is Gillian and I am a sophomore at Swarthmore college. I debated LD on the national circuit for Scarsdale High School for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior years.

If you are doing an email chain I'd be happy to be included. I won't follow along but I might look at stuff after the round. My email is gillian.zipursky@gmail.com

General (This is all you really need):

The round is yours not mine. I will evaluate any argument made in the round and will do my best to refrain from inserting my opinions, familiarities, and preferences into my decision. A two caveats on this:

1. An argument must have a warrant. I need to be able to isolate a reason for thinking that a claim is true in order to include it in my decision.

2. I will not evaluate clearly offensive arguments. This should be clear enough, but I guess you can kind of say it's my own discretion. Hopefully this won't come up.

In comparing arguments I will first look for explicit comparison. If there is none at all, I will look for places of implicit comparison (i.e. debaters make some claim that interacts arguments but does not sign post it as a comparative argument). Without implicit comparison, I will look for mitigation on one of the arguments. If an argument is mitigated then I guess I will think it is somewhat "less important".

I also have a low threshold for extensions. Just mention the argument.

Update for Bronx 2018:

I haven't judged since Princeton 2017 so I A. I have not heard speed for awhile so start a little slower. I will say slow, clear, and loud as many times as I need to but I might have already missed something by the time I say it. B. I don't know anything about the topic so you'll need to explain basic stuff. C. I am not up to date with all of the new circuit norms so just keep that in mind.

Defaults:

I will try to default to whatever the debaters assume in the round. If both debaters are only talking about extinction the whole round, I will assume that the round is about decreasing the risk of extinction even if it is never justified (although I strongly prefer for it to be justified). If I have to default to stuff because I have no idea what debaters are assuming I will assume:

1. Truth testing

2. Competing interps

3. drop the argument on theory and drop the debater on T

4. no RVIs

5. Theory>ROTB

**These defaults are NOT preferences but are in the worst case scenario when there is literally 0 justification on either side and no indication of agreement on a paradigm.**

Theory:

I think theory can be a strategy so I am fine with "frivolous" theory. Counter interps should have offense under competing interps. Weigh your arguments and impact them. You can read shells with out of round violations like disclosure but please have a clear violation and don't rely on me looking stuff up. On 1AR theory, I may have to do a higher level of my own comparison just because it happens in so few speeches.

Framework:

I love philosophy debates and am familiar with most of the common philosophy arguments in debate, but please warrant your claims. Comparison between frameworks makes framework debate better. I am open to debaters applying framework to pre fiat layers as long as they warrant the application (super interesting!).

Kritiks:

K debates are super interesting. I am somewhat familiar with most common Ks. For high theory, I know the basics but still explain your arguments thoroughly because it has been a while since a read any real continental philosophy. I am fine with non-topical affs but I am also fine with topicality. Just engage in that debate. I also will try my very best to be neutral on the question of theory vs K but I tended to be on the theory side as a debater. Lastly, I will not crossapply disadvantages to perms for you. I think that a conceded perm, even when the link is conceded, is a problem for the neg.

"Tricks":

They're fun. I don't have a bias against them.

LARP:

I don't know that much about the world so explain the relevant stuff to me. Don't assume I know the background. Weigh your arguments!

Speaks: Based on strategic choices and quality of arguments. "Prettiness" or a speech usually doesn't affect your speaks. I probably average mid 28s.

Have fun!