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

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

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

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

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

fourth year at UT. Currently debate policy for the Texas Debate team, and did 3 years of LD in high school, reaching bid rounds at various national debate tournaments. please refer to kris kaya's paradigm to get an idea of how I think/judge, and ask if you have any questions! put me on the chain please at nikhil.ajjarapu@gmail.com

I have been judging LD for 3 years. Not many rules:

1. I appreciate a good clash but don't be rude. I will deduct points for rudeness to your opponents.

2. Don't spread. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

3. Signpost & Crystallize. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention and try and crystallize.

4. Don't make up spurious facts. If your opponent catches you and points that out ~ that is automatic deductions.

Apart from that, enjoy yourself.

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=jason+&search_last=chan

+0.1 speaks if you bring good snacks for everyone

Make it clear throughout the rebuttals why you should win the debate. Make the ballot easy for me with things like well explained impact calc, etc! Easy to win T in front of me. Like arguments like T, cps, impact turns, DAs. Don't like k affs, theory, or kritiks. I'm ok with speed, but would prefer the speeches to be clear even if there are less arguments because this leads to better explanation.

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread or read debate theory in the rounds that I am judging. I make my decisions mainly based on logic, common sense and sound evidence. Please do not use big words when you can substitute them for simple ones.

I have been judging since mid-2015 and have judged LD (mostly), Speech, Impromptu, and Pofo. I am not a novice but not a pro either; if you are good, you are good (no matter the judge)! Here's what you should know:

- Start with ABC - Always Be Courteous ... respect each other. Remember to SMILE more.

- I take decent notes, provide comprehensive and objective feedback; prefer not to announce results at the end of the round.

- I like clarity in framework - clarity of thought, content and flow in your value, criterion and contentions. Best if you state these explicitly specially your cards to support your arguments. CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION OF CONTENT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.  I believe x-exam questioning and responses are critical and supports or weakens your case. 

- Speed is ok but don't be supersonic - avoid spreading; you could muffle your own words and speech. Remember clarity??? 

- Your cards / evidence / stats are very critical in supporting your contentions and rebuttal. 

Don't sweat the results - have fun!!!

Hello! My name is Michael Dittmer and I have 4 years of HS LD experience and 2 years of NPDA experience in college. I am currently an LD and Parli coach for Evergreen Valley High School.

A couple notes on my paradigm:

1. I debated for Cal parli and understand tech arguments and am fine with speed. However, I was not the fastest nor most technically advanced debater on the college NPDA circuit, so please accord a little slowing down and explanation in case you're running a complicated position or are telling me how to evaluate certain args, especially in rebuttals. I'm a few years out so if you need to explain to me what functional vs. text comp, competing interps vs. reasonability, etc. please do since I always appreciate the clarity.

2. Generally, the most important thing is having clear, supported, and impacted arguments. I will default to a policy making/net benefits paradigm but am totally fine being told how to evaluate otherwise (e.g. K's, ROB, etc.).

3. I otherwise don't have a whole lot of preferences regarding certain paradigmatic issues, eg related to evaluating theory, K's, etc. Regarding theory I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I'm open to reasonability but probably will err on little more on comparing interps. Theory/procedural needs to be justified as a priori in order to be treated as such. Most importantly, please slow down and clearly read interpretations and violations-both for the sake of me and also in fairness to your opponents.

4. I understand RVIs and metatheory are becoming more a thing these days, but I generally have a pretty high bar for voting for RVIs or arguments that criticize the act of running theory (e.g. in the 1AR) unless abuse is strongly demonstrated.

Feel free to ask questions before round if you see something not listed here. Good luck!

Hello,

To start off with, I am mainly a flay judge. First off, if you want to start an email chain, then feel free to at anil_dixit@yahoo.com. I would appreciate it if you don't spread in round. Please speak in a clear speed and tone with enunciation. Also try not to run theory. Ks, or any types of tricks or other circuit positions. I will have a hard time understanding them and it may result in me interpreting your positions in the wrong way. However, if you do choose to run circuit positions, spend a little more time explaining them. For example, in theory, clearly explain your opponent's violations in round and explain the voters thoroughly. In general, I am fine with you running circuit positions and I will not vote you down for it solely, but you should spend some more time explaining them.

Try to go with your traditional lay positions and cases that you have (Framework + Contentions). The only circuit positions that I am comfortable with are advantages and disadvantages.

I vote based on framework, impact calculus/weighing, speaking style/speed, and argumentation/articulation. Prove to me how your impacts outweigh your opponents and how they follow with the framework debate. Connect your voting issues with the framework, as it is the criterion towards which the judge evaluates the round.

Finally, please don't go about personally insulting your opponents or swearing in round. This will result in an automatic loss if done.

Thank you and good luck with your rounds. Have fun!

1. I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
2. I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
3. If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Hello Debaters,

I've been judging debate for last 3 years. I enjoy good factual debates, professional courtesies and sportsmanship. I love to see teams challenge each other on facts and evidences rather than just through sound. Tell me how and why should I vote a particular way.

Add me on the your Google Doc or Cards: cmu2010@gmail.com

For urgent issues, you can SMS me at +1 408 391 9027

I will vote for arguments that are explained thoroughly.

Presentation skills will be a major part of speaks.

Make sure to speak clearly and not too fast, as I will not vote for an argument if I understand or hear it.

I like stock arguments and case defense.

Hi! I'm Emmiee (they/them) - emmiee@berkeley.edu is the email

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian set-col. I've been coaching Harker LD for 6 years now and have taught at ~10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow.

Various other things of use:

• I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy.
• I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it.
• If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be impact v. offcase weighing and then all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like. If the NC totally drops the AFF and you go for 100% SOL we O/W whatever whatever in the 2AR please give me a sentence in the 1AR about the AFF because it's weird to have it disappear and then reappear and very confusing. 
• I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't just try to win by being too incoherent/confusing for your opponent. 

Other fun things:

• If someone's reading a K vs. you and you're confused, at least 50% of the time in my experience the argument is just incoherent and you should make the common sense "the alt obviously doesn't solve because ___"/"nothing about their K vaguely makes sense"/"___ isn't a link and the card isn't even about the topic or the tag it's something else entirely" argument that's in your head. I keep having to vote for Ks that I know are poorly executed because the other side psychs itself out. 

• I vote for K AFFs and I vote for FWK all the time - it usually comes down to which side actually engages the other as opposed to reading generic prewritten overviewy dumps because that's the side that doesn't drop a bunch of things in the 1AR/NR/2AR. I'm down to vote for the "debate is a game and only a game ergo procedural fairness" flavor of FWK as well if you win it, but I very quickly start getting turned off if part of that strategy involves being a jerk to the other side. 

• White debaters doing the Race War disclosure stuff confuses me. I'm not opposed to voting on it at all but I simply have no idea what this does so if it's going to be part of your strategy I need you to articulate the I/L link between that and whatever you claim it solves or allows you to do. Strategy-wise, "I'm not ____ but I get to read arguments about ____ group because ____" is a lot more intuitive to me than whatever is going on here.

• If you're going to go for "____ thing that wasn't on-face morally abhorrent is a V/I" I need to hear: [1] a warrant in both speeches and [2] some articulation of why this comes before whatever other framing arguments/layers exist in every speech this argument is made in - you can obviously have a lot more extrapolation on #2 when you go for it, but I find it hard to be persuaded by a 5 word argument that only really gets explained at the end of the debate

• Phil: I'm pretty familiar with the literature at this point even though this really wasn't my corner as a debater. A lot of the stuff immediately below applies - phil debates tend to devolve into each side proliferating a bunch of one-liners and then going for three of them without much weighing/etc and that makes it very hard to parse through. When one side says "nuclear bomb kills everyone so we can't enjoy life or discuss values ergo util" and the other side says "adding a circle to a circle doesn't make it more circular ergo kant" it is two ships passing in the night that hurt my brain. Please for the love of God tell me what the implication of you winning something on your end is for the phil debate writ large, why your stuff comes first, how it interacts with what's going on on the other side, etc. If you extend your 3 hot takes on the NC and do 0 actual interaction with the AC FWK or vice-versa you will either lose or have to sit for an hour while I stare at the flow and try to make it make sense. 

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or semantics matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Hey I did speech and policy in high school. Started off with the straight-up style but got to college and saw the rest. I'm better suited for K-style feedback but go with your heart on w.e you want.

I'll evaluate every argument. The debate room can be a fun place so feel free to throw some humor into your speeches. Videos and dank memes are cool.
On an unrelated note, bringing granola bars or some snackage would be appreciated. I don't care much for soft drinks though. In other words please feed me nice food because in-round picnics make everyone's day. <--

What you care about:
Please don't make judges do the work for you on the flow. If you don't do the line-by-line or clearly address an argument, don't get upset if I reach an unfavorable conclusion. Reading me cards without providing sufficient analysis leaves the purpose a bit unclear.

T
Aff- reasonabilty probably has my vote but I can be persuaded to vote for creative and convincing non-topic-related cases.

Neg- Get some substance on the flow. T should not be a go-to-argument. I hate arguments dealing with "should", "USFG", etc and you should too. Impact out the violation. Simply stating that the team is non-topical and attaching some poorly explained standards will not fly or garner support. On K affs remember you can always go further left as an option.

Theory- Typically a pretty boring discussion but if it's creative I'll approve. If you notice yourself thinking "I wish I were reading something else" then it's a clear sign I wish you were too. Remember to slow down on those analytics though- hands cramp.

Case
Aff
Being able to cite authors and point to specific cards = speaks. (same for neg)

Neg
Throw some case defense at the end of your 1nc after you do your off-case arguments. Aff has to answer them but you already know that. Reading through aff evidence and showing power tags or misuse is great.

Da
Aff- if you can turn this in some way then you'll be fine. Point out flaws in the Link story when you can. Figuring out a solid internal link story might be a good idea.

Neg
Internal links will only help you. Let's avoid generic stuff.

CP
Aff
You need to show that it's noncompetitive and you can perm or that their argument just sucks.

Neg
Show a net benefit and how you solve the impacts. Furthermore show how your cp is awesome.

K
Aff
Explain: how case doesn't link, perm, or alt doesn't solve or do anything. Weigh your impacts if appropriate. If the neg is misinterpreting an author and you sufficiently illustrate his/her message, then you'll be doing well in the round.

Neg
I like K's a lot. Hopefully will know what's up. Just explain your story clearly (seriously). Stunt on em.

Side note for everyone: In round actions are easy performative solvency to weigh btw

Performance
Aff
It's going to come down to how well you can explain the impact you are addressing with your performance and the solvency story under framework.

Neg
I suppose you can do framework or T if you have nothing else but try and interact because the aff team will be prepared. Or if you want to go down this route it's cool. Swayed by creativity though.

Hey there!

Cross-ex: I judge cross-ex heavily and take into a big part when it comes to making my final decision. I look for you being able to successfully defend your case confidently along with pointing out flaws for your opponents case. Be confident but do not be rude as that really looks bad in my eyes. Be demanding but don't be aggressive. Keep your cool and do not ever put down your opponent.

Arguments: I should be able to understand the vast majority of arguments that you guys present to me. Please do not run theory or kritiks as those are hard to follow along with. I will listen to all disadvantages and counterplans and should be able to understand them easily. I love it when you weigh your arguments and it's how I determine a tie-breaker if a round is closer. Tell me why your argument's impact matters more than your opponents and why your opponents impact is less likely to occur. I also wish to see you actually explaining the arguments in your own words and using logic rather than you reading a bunch of evidence cards to prove your point. After each card give a little explanation of it so I am able to follow along easier. I also would prefer that you provide an overview in the beginning of your speeches since that is important to me. I do listen to the framework debate but I don't use it to make my decision as much as I would use the arguments itself.

Presentation: Please do not spread! If you think you are speaking to fast, then you probably are. Talk clearly and fluently and confidently. There's nothing that upsets me more than a debater who I can not understand.

Other than that, debate fairly and don't try to be sketchy. Don't bring up new arguments in the last speeches as I will not actually put them on my flow and use them to weigh the round. Good luck!

I have been judging for close to 5 years at several local and state tournaments in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. I judged Public Forum, LD mostly, at Novice JV and Varisty levels.

I am open to any arguments, but the arguments where impacts are shown carry more weightage. Impacts should be significant: that affect big population, health impacts, economy impacts, impacts to human values, safety, etc. The more the evidences is better, extrapolating what happened in the past to the future is ok, as long as it is explained logically.

No offensive comments or remarks during the debates. I like the offline roadmaps before start of each speech. It is good to repeat/summarize what you think is your key point. Please feel free to remind judge what you think is most important to you.

I will be happy to answer any questions before the round starts about my preferences.

I prefer traditional debates that emphasize quality over quantity of argumentation. Persuasion and communication skills are important in debate, so please present your cases at a conversational pace. I have an **extremely high** threshold for explanation on the K, so sticking with the counter plan/disad debate is a better strategy in front of me. Define any debate jargon clearly if you want to use it.

Anya, Lynbrook '18 Alum and Second Year @ Cal Poly SLO

*updated for CPS new*

apd2000@gmail.com

^ add me to the email chain. Flashing isn't prep.

Hi! I'm Anya. Currently a second year undergrad @ Cal Poly SLO. Debated VLD at Lynbrook for three years and competed a lot / coached younger debaters and went to camp for three years and all that lol.

But to be frank though, since I'm in college it's been a few years since I've judged varsity LD rounds. So this means if there's new jargon in the VLD community or new progressions that have happened in the last couple of years, i probably don't know them lol so pls don't assume i do. i'm a bit rusty with stuff since like i said it's been a while (just putting it out there to be transparent) but it doesn't mean i won't know wat you're talking about -- as long as you're clear

this also means maybe talk a bit slower especially at the beginning as I get used to spreading / flowing at a decent pace. like i will mention below i'll yell clear a few times like 3 but then stop flowing if you're being obnoxiously fast so plsss dont xd

In general I'll vote off anything as long as you explain it and win it well.

also, I'm comfortable with evaluating both lay and progressive debate (if this wasn't clear!)

Basics

PLEASE slow down on tags and author names. My biggest pet peeve is when people spread way too fast and expect me to catch all of it - I'll yell clear three times and then stop flowing. I also personally like when people really explain or emphasize more important arguments rather than just rush through everything.

I'll give higher speaks for impact calc / weighing / smart arguments / strategy / good overviews and really making the round easy for me to decide. I'm not great at flowing so all this would be super helpful :) I try not to tank speaks so DON'T be offensive and be respectful, esp if you're debating a novice or something - I'll tank your speaks if you're gonna be an ass. Don't do it.

I presume neg if squo, if you defend advocacy i'll presume aff. Permissibility flows neg (although you can convince me otherwise)

I will not vote off tricks (especially since i haven't done VLD for a few years lol pls pls pls don't assume i'll be down for some werid tricky debate) + i'll vote off spikes in 1ac only if they're super warranted & well explained and clear!!!

semi strong threshold on extensions. less so if they conceded it, you can just kind of extend / explain if its not that imp, but spend a good amount of time on it if it IS important. just kinda common sense stuff + i give some leeway to the aff bc on the timeskew

I also will increase your speaks if you engage really well with the aff - dont just read 4 off and dont respond or explain links well

i default offense defense and voting on strength of link

disclose! :) and flash pls

Larp

By far my favorite type of debate :) I don't believe you have to win uniqueness for a link turn.

Please read CPs with a DA or turns to the aff at least....

you NEED to weigh in these types of debates and i really like evidence comparison / even line by line! I won't vote off defense or terminal defense but i think it does make debates more compelling when people interact with args rather than just read read read :)

really make good extensions and explain the importance of evidence esp in these types of debates. for instance if ur extending a confusing da pls explain it!! dont just say 'extend the link'.

anyway i really like these debates so if you go for them in front of me pls do it well! :)

Theory / T

I think TVA claims on T are really persuasive - give examples of ground you lose and pls make the abuse clear. I default drop the debater, no rvis, and competing interpretations on both T and theory. Going for an RVI on T might be hard in front of me but once again if you think you can convince me otherwise go for it! If you're gonna read a non topical aff be ready to defend it well against T in front of me!

in terms of theory, i think 1ar theory is a super good strat :) tbh i dont love friv theory and i find the abuse really hard to figure out for a lot of these shells ( like spec status, etc) but once again if you think u can explain it go ahead.. just dont expect me to vote for something bc u assume i see the abuse. basically, impact ur args!

also theory / T debates get really messy and i will dock ur speaks if u dont sign post and weigh clearly... pls dont leave me with a CI vs interp debate with no weighing and a bunch of dropped args :( i will not be happy

Ks

I really like these types of arguments! Alt and link explanation in the 2nr is super important - especially explain WHAT the link is and how the alternative solves case. I think a lot of K lit is super cool and I def go for these arguments but things like high theory or really dense lit really has to be explained well. I don't feel comfortable voting off things I DON'T understand, so if you read these things you have to make sure you know what you're talking about! don't just read a weird K and don't explain it well especially in the 2nr! I will say though i'm more comfortable with larpy debate than this kind of debate but that being said if you wanna go for this just do it well!!

Phil / FW

I honestly go for util most of the time, so reading things like dense phil is probably not a good idea. aka probably dont do this / dont assume i understand what you're talking about - however, once again, if you can explain it and answer util well go for it. Just don't confuse me. Pls impact and compare offense / warrants and tell me what the aff / neg world looks like!

I am a first year Judge at Saint Francis High school.

K's

I hate K's. The only K's I am good with are deschooling and neolib. If you offer up a K, it better have a good reason to link to the impacts and also it must win on framework for me to vote on the K.

T

I like T. I like education, so if someone says that T is better for education. I need to have a good warrant, or I don't believe you. I normally vote on T.

CP

Don't really care about CP. If the aff says perm do both. You need to contest that perm really well or I automatically vote aff. If the aff doesn't say perm do both, I have a hard time voting aff.

Impact Calculus

I love impact calc. You must specify exactly timeframe, magnitude, and probability. You must have warrants on all 3 or I don't vote for you on impact calculus.

Speed

You can spread as long as you send me the speech doc to my email anumallikreddy@yahoo.com

update for strake: keep in mind that i haven't judged, coached, or thought about debate since the 2020 TOC. do whatever you want and i'll do my best to adjudicate it impartially, just err on the side of overexplanation for obscure k lit. you should probably slow down a bit in rebuttal speeches because online debate and also because i haven't heard spreading since april. i'll give you above a 29 if i think you should clear. also have fun:)

-

e-toc updates n stuff

(1) coaching affiliations: loyola BC, loyola LH, anderson AR

(2) most important - please slow down/be especially clear given the variability in audio quality.

(3) i will no longer vote on arguments that ask me to evaluate any part of the round after a speech that is not the 2ar. i've found that procedurally excluding any speech results in an incredibly arbitrary and interventionist decision calculus that neither debater will benefit from in the way that they hope to.

updated for 2019-2020

mountain view high school (ca) '18 // ucla '22

email: maya.sanghavi@gmail.com - please feel free to reach out by email/fb if you have pre/post round questions or if you're a small school debater and need help of any sort!

i debated circuit LD for MVLA for two years, graduated in 2018, and received one bid to the TOC my senior year. i've taught at NSD Flagship (2018, 2019) and TDC (2019). i now attend UCLA and am an assistant coach at loyola high school.

for prefs:

debate is your activity, so i'll vote on any argument that has a coherent claim, warrant, and impact. i have no ideological leanings on the kind of debate you choose to have - the only preference i have is that you debate how you want to. i will do my best to evaluate the round how you tell me to, and, absent clear argumentation, i will attempt to operate under the assumptions shared by both debaters (i.e. if a shell is read without a voter, but both debaters act as though the shell is drop the debater, i will evaluate it as such). the last thing i want to do is intervene, so it's in your best interest to make the round as clear as possible - this means weighing a bunch, justifying everything, giving clear overviews, and actually explaining your arguments.

i'm most familiar with theory, topicality, and philosophical framework debates, and less familiar with policy and kritik debates. i'm probably worst at evaluating in depth policy v. policy or k v. k rounds, but as long as you explain your arguments well, i should be fine regardless of what you read. i will vote on tricks if won, but i don't like them. i'm impartial on the k-aff vs t-framework debate.

be nice & have fun :)

Chait Sayani

DVHS '17

Add me to the email chain: chaitanya.sayani@gmail.com

LADI Website: https://www.theladi.org/

edit for CPS 2018: I’m currently recovering from eye surgery lol so I might be a little distracted by the pain and my vision during round. Going slower and collapsing more than usual would be much appreciated :’)

Basics:

I did LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years and policy for a bit as well. Like most judges, I will try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible and will not paradigmatically exclude any argument unless it is blatantly racist/homophobic/deliberately exclusionary in any manner. That said, like most judges, I definitely have preferences for certain strategies. To borrow from the late great Arjun Tambe, even if your strat contradicts my defaults, I will still vote on it if its well explained and impacted. Your strategy does effect the amount of work you will need to do to win the round in front of me, So while adaption isn't particularly necessary, it does go quiet a long way in terms of strategic viability. Below, i've listed my views and affinities for certain types of Arguments.

Straight Up/ Util Debate:

This is quiet possibly my favorite form of debate to watch and judge. Honestly, I don't think I evaluate these types of debates differently from anyone else, so if you wanna read these args in front of me, go ahead. However, all the regular technicalities still apply. I think Impact Calc is definitely important, and evidence comparison especially on the Uniqueness and Impact Debate make the evaluation of the round a lot easier. I also think Counterplans must be competitive (read: don't say the CP solves better so we compete through net benefits lol). I think you need to win Uniqueness to win a link turn, and I think that Perms have to win a net benefit. Also as a final note, I find it really hard to believe terminal defense claims. In the words of Scotty P "IMO, there are in fact, risks of things". Good Straight up debaters give me a consistent framework to resolve that risk and make my life easier. If you wanna have a good Util Debate, by all means, go ahead.

Kritiks:

These were probably my favorite args to go for my sophomore, junior and senior years. I am comfortable evaluating most kritik authors, but with that said, I will hold you to a higher level of explanation that some others might. One of my main pet peeves in K debate (especially in LD) is reading a horrifically generic link and doing zero case contextualization in the 1NC and dumping some generic overview in the 2NR. My only requirement to reading the Kritik is to know what you're saying. Engage the Case, and leverage the thesis of the Kritik against various responses. Create a story behind the ballot, and persuade me to buy it. As long as you satisfy that litmus test, read whatever you want.

Edit: Some people told me this section was too vague, so in order to be a little more specific, here's a list of some kritiks i've been going for this year so far. Sep Oct: AfroPes, Fear of death, Meltdowns, Security. Nov Dec: Psycho, Agamben, Delueze, Nietzsche. Jan Feb: Baudrillard, Bataille, Delueze, Warren. Check my wiki if you have any more questions

Theory:

Definitely not the best for theory debates, but I am relatively alright at evaluating them. Don't blip through 7 theory standards in the 1NC/1AR and expect me to magically vote on a horrifically and uncleanly extended standard in the 2NR/2AR. Here are some defaults I lean towards:

- Default Reasonability, NO RVI's, and Drop the Argument

- I lean neg on 1 Condo, but anything more than that makes me iffy

- I do think a lot of theory that's being read nowadays is kinda ridiculous, but I will definitely vote for it if you win it. Just remember I do think Reasonability is a pretty persuasive out on that flow however. To contextualize this, here are some interps I find frivolous that I plagiarized from Kris Kaya's paradigm: Must Spec Status in Speech, Must Read Policy Alt, Must Spec what Maximizing Expected Well Being Means, Extinction impacts bad, Must spec university, etc.

- I also don't think that winning one standard on theory magically makes all others irrelevant. I think because of my relatively low experience going for theory, Impact Calc and comparative analysis is especially key. Impact your args.

Side note on Non T K aff's: I am much more lenient towards direction of the topic aff's as opposed to straight up non topical aff's, but again, Ill evaluate both. Ironically, even though Dougherty's arguably most successful aff was non topical, I lean neg on FW vs K aff debates. If you're aff really is that baller, there's probably a TVA. However, the K debater in me does make me willing to adjudicate FW debates relatively objectively.

Phil/Framework Debates:

Much like theory, I am less experienced with Phil than I am with other types of my arguments, but will evaluate them regardless. I understand basic phil like Kant, Habermas, Rawls, but thats about it. If you do decide to go for this strat in front of me, please make sure to explain, impact, and compare warrants (Read: Tell me what the hell is going on and why I should vote for you).

Tricks: https://goo.gl/BGF2xt .

My understanding of a lot of tricks are limited so run them in front of me at your own discretion. I agree with Arjun when I say that I think Tricks are kinda bad for debate. Just engage please.

Misc/General Notes:

- Sending a speech isn't prep

- I will yell clear

- Tech > Truth

- I think Disclosure is a good thing

- You must be willing to Flash/Email/Pass pages. Give your opponent access to your arguments during the round

- I default Offense Defense

- Don't be mean

- Extensions require explaining a warrant. Not just saying Extend this.

Speaks:

I start at a 28 and go up or down based from there.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Steele%2C%20Nick Affiliations: Harvard Westlake, Dennis Tang (West Linn HS)
Hi - My name is Nick Steele and I debated varsity LD for 4 years at Harvard Westlake. I'll try to keep this brief - my judging preferences are pretty open:
I'll evaluate the round based off of the line by line. I'll try to be impartial - For example I will vote on ideal theory/Kant vs. a race AFF if good comparison and weighing are done. I will vote on politics vs. a structural violence AFF, and I will vote on K impact turns to theory, and vice versa
That being said, I tend to lean more towards policy/k style arguments than theory and phil
Policy args: most of what I read in highschool, I'm comfortable evaluating them
Ks: I read a lot of these too, I'm familiar with all the common ones but if you're reading dense pomo or something less common please have clear overviews and tags
Non T AFFs, performance, narratives, etc: all fine and I read them, they're still debate arguments so I hold them to the same standards. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key
T framework: it's fine and necessary sometimes , the T version of the AFF debate is usually important so be clear there
Theory: Good strategic theory or theory to check actual abuse is good, I will vote on frivolous theory but I don't think it's very strategic and that will be reflected in speaks
I'll try to be neutral but I lean AFF on 2 or more condo, NEG on agent cp's, AFF on specific plans good, NEG on reasonable PICs but AFF on super small or random PICs. Default competing interps and drop the debater
Phil: I'm familiar with and read at some point all of the common LD frameworks. I'm most familiar with consequentialism and deontology, but feel comfortable evaluating most framework debates. Same thing applies with dense fw as dense Ks
Tricks/a prioris/ skep etc: will vote on them, don't like them. I think common sense responses answer a lot of these positions well
Speaks: will be given based off of efficiency, giving good overviews, collapsing effectively, reading quality substantive arguments, and effectively using ethos if it suits the round.
30 - one of the best speeches I've seen all year
29.5 - you should get to late out rounds
28.9 - you should probably clear
28.5 - average
Flashing: Make an email chain. If you're using a computer you should have a flash drive as back up. I won't take prep. Be fast please
I won't vote on things like racism or rape good, etc. If you personally insult someone in the room or deliberately make someone uncomfortable you'll get a 0.
Do what style you're best at and have fun! I'm excited to see different individual arguments styles and people debate best when they're confident in what they're reading.

I am a parent judge.

I am ok with spreading as long as I have your case with me and prefer less spreading during rebuttals.

I pay special attention to CX and Rebuttals and you score higher if you logically tie your case, questions and rebuttal arguments. In your conclusions do summarize why your case is stronger than your opponent's.

Be organized, treat your opponent with respect and time your selves.

I like to reflect on the round before I submit the ballot so it may not be possible for me to disclose at the end of the round.

All the best.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.