I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

I Lexington LD ‘17

Cal Berkeley ‘21

General: Debate is a communicative activity where truths are contingent on your justification

and construction of them – that said I’ll vote off of whatever is justified. Debate is a testing space

for arguments – this means that whatever paradigm you justify whether that’s poetic

performance or reasonability – that’s how things will work. *I reserve the right to make

particular judgements that go against the paradigm or choices in specific issues not listed based

on new circumstances that arise* I’m impartial but understand psychologically people will be

biased towards arguments that are well explained and clearly explicated because I can

understand your intentions and framing better – that’s the only way ethos impacts things but it

matters. Persuasion, research, presentation are all crucial for debate to make you all great

reasoners, researchers, and talkers – those will help you in career and make the world a better

place – I’ll do my role as a judge to regulate practices like so. Big picture framing is important so

long as it resolves the line by line – pathos alone is insufficient but required

PF:

- I’ve talked to PF people on my team and debated it for fun a couple times within my team, and

since I did LD I’ll evaluate things similarly to a mutually agreed implicit framework or

framework/contention duality

LD:

General:

- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and

dock speaks

- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that

- Prep stops when your flash drive leaves your computer – making speech docs is part of prep

- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and

clearly

- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently or it's brought up in the

round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on strength of this violation) from

whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the

round impartially – I just need to deter undisclosure

- You must make your evidence available

- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh

- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Defaults

- *I’ll only use default paradigms if both debaters don’t assume a common paradigm or explicitly

argue for one, or implicitly justify one – I try to keep my defaults the least interventionist as

possible so even if you don’t know about it, it won’t affect your strategy

- Theory: Competing interps, RVI’s, Drop the Debater

Comparing Worlds

- Framework – syllogistics over floating justifications, epistemic confidence

Policy-esque arguments:

- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first and

will read your cards because that’s the only non interventionist understanding

- Utilize argument diversity

- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't

know their use even if you have won them

- please compare evidence

- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase

your speaks so will being well researched

Phil:

- I’m well read on analytical philosophy, I’m less well read on postmodernism and continental

philosophy but as long as you can clearly articulate them syllogistically – it’ll be super easy to

evaluate, just don’t throw buzzwords around because then I’ll just think you’re recycling

backfiles and trying to confuse everyone

- be comparative

Kritik:

- Very familiar with cap, ID ptx, antiblackness, CLS, security, and other policy kritiks – less

familiar with postmodernism

- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it

- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both

- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the

round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well

- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super

responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these

- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:

- Default to competing interps, rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other

sides

- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as

argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I’ll destroy your speaks to

reflect your pathetic strategy

- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks

and abuse

- weigh and frame – pure line by line just shows me your ignorant to the overall picture

Tricks:

- Love intelligent and unique tricks with interesting applications because they show the creative

research that debate should value – don’t recycle, because it just shows your lack of unoriginality

and research

- I’ll nuke your speaks to deter old recycled tricks like rodl indexicals and the standard

LHP/scarsdale 2012 stuff

- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech

- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.

Ethics:

- If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of

an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given

to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping – record your speeches but not

your opponents – they should do that to avoid law violations

- Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in

round as evidence indicts – evidence can be interpreted in various ways, don’t think it should be

required to drop them but you can read a theory shell, I just don’t think it’s a smart strategy

- If your opponent says some really messed up stuff like racism is good or something I’ll nuke

their speaks to mess them up for the tournament, but if you can’t beat such a pathetically racist

argument it shows your lack of skill – I need kids and the new liberal generation to be able to

stand up and justify, tackle the most bigoted of speech so that you are informed and ready to

destroy the racists of the real world, you will not get by in the real world expecting people to “be

liberal” – which means I won’t automatically vote against them but will dock their speaks

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

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

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

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

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

How should this affect the way I debate?

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

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

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

More stuff:

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

The affirmative probably should be topical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

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

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

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

Some considerations for you:

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

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

Updated 11/30/18 for Strake 2018.
Please start an email chain before the round - my email is brown.k.adam@gmail.com

Overview About Me - I debated for Episcopal HS in Houston and graduated in 2016. I was coached by Jacob Koshak. I qualified to the TFA State, Nationals, and the TOC. I'm currently a junior at Kenyon College studying Sociology with a focus on African Diaspora Studies. I've taught at TDC, NSD Flagship, NSD Texas, NSD Phili and Apex. I've coached students from Earl Warren, North Crowley, Montgomery, Klein Oak, Kamiak, and some other schools.

TL;DR - I care a lot about debate as an educational space for exploration and learning.Do whatever you're passionate about and have fun. I feel confident in my ability to properly evaluate most any flow, but i'm most comfortable with the K flow, followed by phil, then T and theory, then tricks, then LARP. This isn't an indicator of what I like or want to vote on, but a clarification of what i think my strengths are in terms of understanding type-specific arguments and their interactions. I'm willing to vote on anything as well as it's clearly explained and sufficiently warranted. Weighing and clear ballot stories attached to framing are really important. I will not evaluate an argument that I cannot explain in the RFD. Pre-round questions should be more specific than "what's your paradigm" or "speed?".

Fundamentals

1. Every debate round belongs to the two debaters. My job as a judge is to determine the winner of the round through the evaluative tools that you give me (until told otherwise). This means that i'm willing to vote for nearly any argument presented in front of me, insofar as it has the necessary warrants and framework to make it relevant to the decision. The biases and defaults in this paradigm serve to clarify some predispositions i feel that i have when judging.
2. That being said, i believe that every round must have some parameters imposed on it by the judge so as to keep the space safe for all participants. These include things like voting down debaters who use intentionally exclusive and/or unsafe rhetoric, intervening if a participant is unable to continue the round for physical/emotional/etc reasons, or anything else of this sort. Please don't hesitate to ask me anything concerning this point before the round.
3. There are branches of debate, study, and literature that i found/still find immense joy in researching, debating, and learning about. This, however, does not translate to a pass to skimp on explanation of those ideas. At the very least, i hope to hold debaters to the same expectation as any other position.
4. Don't feel like you need to read something that you think i'll love personally. I'd much rather watch a well done must spec debate than a badly done, hurriedly prepared Deleuze vs Wilderson round.

Specific Feelings About Debate Argumentative Preferences and Defaults

1. I believe that there is always a role of the judge/ballot. By default, this is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution through arguments and frameworks given by both debaters with importance concerning the aforementioned 2 point under "fundamentals". Theory voters, role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments, and other commentaries on what the judge should or should not do all edit my obligation as a judge and how i ought to view/use the ballot when making my decision. I nearly always look to this framing first to determine who wins the round, so be sure to emphasize exactly how you want me to act when debating in front of me.
2. My threshold for presuming/granting things is relatively high with the notable exception of cross applications and extensions of conceded arguments. Basically, i don't want to be doing work for you to make up for argumentative inadequacies.
3. I often struggle with voting on arguments that are articulated one way but are presented in the evidence or in the literature base in another way. If this occurs, i'll almost certainly vote on the articulation absent any call out by the opponent but drop the articulator's speaker points proportionally to the degree of the misarticulation, not going beyond a point drop from the pre-dropped total. If there is a call out, i'll generally give a lot of credence to it.

Speaker Points

1. I primarily base speaker points on strategy. After that, i look to a variety of things like CX, unique decision-making, and overall performance. Humor/sass are dope but shouldn't be forced. Chances are, the more relaxed you feel in a round, the more enjoyable it will be for everyone and the higher speaks you'll get.
2. Some secondary factors for speaker points include word efficiency and confidence. Vocal clarity will never be a factor. Ridiculously long off-clock stuff (specifically email/flashing) will hurt speaks.

Post-Round

1. I probably will take longer that you think i need to when making my decision. I only do so so that i can be sure that i'm confident in my decision and have reviewed all paths to the ballot. I often have trouble working and thinking with noise around me, so if i put headphones in just know that i need a little time with my own thoughts.
2. I think that post-round discussion is extremely valuable. That being said, if your opponent is asking me questions, please don't take that as an opportunity to jump in and insert your own views on the issue.
3. If questioning is taking too long (usually in the cases of late flight A rounds), i will ask that you come see me later during the tournament. Please please please don't take this as a nicely phrased "i don't want to talk about this anymore." I will try to come find you at some point in the tournament and encourage you to message me on Facebook or do whatever you can so that we can talk about the round further.

If you have any other question, please don't hesitate to contact me in person, on Facebook, or over email (brown.k.adam@gmail.com).

Here are a list of people (in addition to my coaches) who i strongly admire/strive to be like/generally agree with in terms of debate:

Ben Koh
Jenn Melin
Tim Alderete
Kris Wright
Arun Sharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad speaks: Opposite of above.

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

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

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

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

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

@berk debaters: I've been completely removed from debate for the last year, so please build up to top speed as opposed to going all out in the beginning

ALSO IF YOU WANT HIGH SPEAKS GIVE ME NICE and CLEAR OVERVIEWS

email for chain is coylejack1@gmail.com

hey, I'm Jack! I'm a senior at Berkeley and I debated for four years at La Costa Canyon High School in San Diego. I debated policy for two years and ld for two years. I went to the most national circuit tournaments for ld my senior year, and I cleared at stanford and berkeley. here are some of my thoughts on debate.

theory - I am very comfortable with theory debates. whether you use theory only as a genuine check on abuse or for frivolous purposes is fine by me. I won't buy arguments that just say drop this shell because it's frivolous. if it's a dumb shell just beat it quickly. i will not drop a shell just because i personally think there's no abuse. warrant your arguments and you will be good. Absent the arguments being made in round, I default competing interps, drop the debater, RVIs, theory > K, and fairness before education. but make the arguments anyways, a messy theory debate is no bueno.

also as an aside, i don't love disclosure theory. i'll vote on it if your interp is sufficiently warranted, but just know that it will be a bit more of an uphill battle for you.

t - i think T is a great and undervalued strategy, go for it.

kritiks - i think critical arguments are awesome and make for super interesting debates. good critical debates are honestly some of my favorite debates to judge / listen to. i love when debaters explain how the kritik specifically links into the aff and how it interacts with other layers in the round. big picture overviews are awesome on the K. As I've judged more and more rounds, K debates have become some of my favorites to judge.

util - very comfortable with util debates. please slow down on tags and authors here. i will be impressed if you know the methodologies of your studies well and can press opponents on these factors. good evidence comparison is key. other than that make sure you cover the basics (cp's need a net benefit to the aff (through some disad), solvency advocates are a thing, good empirical studies are awesome (and undervalued!!).

framework - i debated fw the least in high school, so i'm not super well versed in dense philosophies. i only ever read util, kant, virtue ethics, and non ideal theory in HS. if you have a good understanding of your fw, i'd appreciate a quick explanation of the fw before you begin reading substance. i am more persuaded by line by line responses to fw rather than reading a dump and not explaining how the answers interact with the nuances of the opponents fw. if you are looking for a super dense fw debate i am probably not the best judge for that round. also, i default epistemic confidence, but will evaluate under epistemic modesty if you justify it.

tricks - they're alright, i don't have a ton of experience with tricks, so don't expect to blow through a nailbomb aff and for me to understand your complex burden structure and all the spikes. i'm not impressed if your entire strategy is only tricks from the get go. i don't like when you extend blippy arguments without elaborating how those arguments affect the ballot. explain how the trick works and you will be fine.

speaks - i start at a 28.5 and adjust from there. if i think you should clear you will get a 29 or higher. don't be evasive or excessively rude in cx, ESPECIALLY if you are debating someone who is less experienced that you. explaining your arguments to an opponent who may not have heard them before will give you better speaks.
2. big picture overviews. i love 1ar and 2nr overviews that break down the round for me. i want you to tell me how to write my ballot (pls do this i will be so happy)
3. delineate between tag lines and cards, pause between layers
4. humor, general strategic choices, and interesting/cool arguments will grant you higher speaks
6. if you have an interesting/unique position and run it well, I will probably give you higher speaks

any questions? coylejack1@berkeley.edu or facebook

i know debate is stressful, but enjoy your time in the activity! if you feel really flustered, just take a deep breath and gather your thoughts. it's really helpful especially when you feel overwhelmed in round! good luck!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

email: srividya.dasaraju@gmail.com

I debated for four years in high school and now do policy debate at USC. respect your opponents, and each other. don't be rude.

I generally think the affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Disclosure is good, please do it. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2A for almost my entire debate career; I ran almost exclusively policy affs with policy impacts, except a few soft-left K affs. favor affs that are more limited in scope but actually result in their impacts (they are True) to affs with tons of huge impacts and internal links.

On the negative, I have become most familiar with the politics DA, topic DA's, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. If the affirmative is simply not True, good case arguments and a DA can easily outweigh (and vice versa with the affirmative case vs. a DA).


DAs: Love them! Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.
Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrinsicness".
Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

Topicality:
I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?) I have found that I am usually convinced that limits are the most important standard for evaluating a T flow, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Counterplans:
These counterplans are usually good:

· PICs

· Advantage

· States

These counterplans are susceptible to theory:

· International Fiat

· Consult, conditions, recommend

· Word PICs

I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared. If you go for CP theory, you will have to clearly explain and impact it out. Although I am definitely familiar with the basics, my knowledge of CP theory is not super technical. Also, clearly delineating impacts to your theory arguments is just a good idea in general.

Theory:
Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team (usually)
That being said, two or three conditional options is usually a good limit
Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it. I don't have a great understand on LD theory and high philosophy LD debates. It will have to be pretty clearly explained to me otherwise I will be very unsure of what to vote on

Kritiks:

I’m not your best judge for these. I am not super well-versed in K lit, especially really high theory stuff, but I keep up with topic specific Ks and generics.

– do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that.
If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation.
I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy.
Links of omission are not links.
Floating PIKs are bad.
Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair.
Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good.
Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.
A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.
Role of the ballot arguments are stupid and I won't vote on them. Just make a substantive impact framing argument.

For more info, please see the link below.


K Affs:
I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Topics are intentionally imperfect to allow room for both sides to have reasonable arguments.
Any model of debate in which the neg has to beat the case to win their T argument seems illogical to me, since the premise of the neg T argument is that they can't be prepared to beat the case.
http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sternberg%2C+Jordana


The following is a list of phrases that are meaningless to me without further explanation:
A logical policymaker could do both
In the direction of the topic
Pre/post fiat
Vote no
Fiat solves the link
Perm do the aff
Method debate

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

General: I debated for four years on nat circuit at Harker. I'm open to any sort of argument, but here are my defaults:

Theory:
- If your A strat is to run a bunch of theory spikes/presumption triggers every round and do no topic prep, don't pref me :D I will not vote on frivolous theory.
- I'll still listen to any shell you read, especially if there is legit abuse in the round. Well-executed plans good/plans bad, pics good/bad, etc. are fine.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but I'll vote on whatever is decided in the debate.
- RVIs are fine.

Fmwk/Philosophy:
- I ran mostly util and policy style arguments, but you can read whatever you want so long as you justify your framework fully and explain how you (and your opponent) can weigh under your standard clearly
- Just because you win framework or ROB doesn't mean you win the round - weigh your links
- I'm not very compelled by skep - its probably defense

Kritiks:
- Run them - I think they're the most educational part of debate, but if you read a rather uncommon K (i.e. something other than Cap, Fem, Racism, Anthro, etc.) make sure you explain them in english and not esoteric philosophical terms.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is about learning and having fun while learning, not just trophies :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

kuhukg@gmail.com

I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.

I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:

I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.

I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.

My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.

I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.

Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.

That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

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.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

Please add me on your email chains: jjkim96@gmail.com

THINGS TO KNOW WHILE FILLING OUT PREF SHEETS:

My background in debate:
2011-2014: Policy @ Lexington High School (Lexington, MA)
2015-2016: Policy @ UC Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)
2015-2020: Policy/LD/PF Coach @ The Harker School (San Jose, CA)
2020-Present: Not coaching, currently in grad school for Security Studies @ Georgetown University

I had the privilege of being debating under, debating with, and helping coach top-tier talents at top-tier teams that got to see much of the national circuit. I've been out of debate for a bit but I'm still deep in the security and policy literature.

My affinity for arguments, in order:
Disclaimer: the difference between 1 and 5 is far narrower than the difference between 5 and 6.

1) Policy/LARP (DAs, CPs, Impact turns, etc.)
2) IR Ks (Security, Fem IR), Marxist Ks (Cap, Neolib, Materialism, etc.)
3) Identity-based args (Pessimism, SetCol)
4) Postmodern Ks (Baudrillard, Bataille, Psychoanalysis, etc. - Deleuze is a 6)
5) T/Theory (notable exception: T vs Non-topical affs, which is a 2)

---[I'll happily judge and vote for everything above this line - everything below, I have a harder time following along]---

6) Modernist Ks (Nietzsche, Heidegger)
7) Phil
8) Frivolous theory/tricks

Reasons to pref me high:
- Your evidence is high-quality
- You are confident in your ability to extend and expand on your high-quality evidence
- You have multiple strategies for a given round (and you can go for any of them)
- You have one strategy that you know you are incredibly good at AND can explain it to someone who's not as familiar with it

Reasons to pref me low:
- You rely on a number of other factors that have little to do with the quality of your evidence and arguments (spreading out debaters, intimidating/shaming opponents, betting on opponents to drop something) to win the round
- You are significantly more knowledgeable in your literature than I am AND you feel that the judge should do a lot of work for you if the opponent drops some foundational theory about your lit base (do you read source lit for Ks? If so, you may be here)

THINGS TO KNOW FOR THE PEOPLE I AM JUDGING

This section is deliberately short.
If you'd like to know my background knowledge regarding and/or willingness to vote for any argument without tipping your hand to your opponent or have any concerns about the round re: safety/comfort, please send me an email or ask to speak to me privately before the round. I'll happily answer any questions you have to the best of my abilities. Seriously, email me; It’s a zero-risk option for you.

Here are some questions I’ve been asked before:
"My opponent has a history of clipping; how do you go about verifying and punishing it?"
”What were your favorite args to go for in high school/college?”
"Do you vote for RVIs on T?"
"How familiar are you with semiocapitalism?"
"What are your thoughts re: fairness as an independent impact to Framework?"
"My opponent has a history of making me uncomfortable in round. Could you keep that in mind as this debate occurs?

Other thoughts:
- I don't assume the worst of debaters when it comes to slips in language. That said, the bar is a lot lower if you misgender/misprofile people.
- Presumption is a non-starter in front of me. The likelihood of one side having zero risk of offense is low, but the likelihood of both sides having zero risk is impossible. Win your offense.
- Accusations of cheating (e.g. clipping, evidence ethics) are not theory violations. The round ends immediately and I decide on the spot.

Former coach. Current debate boomer. Put me on the email chain, leokiminardo@gmail.com.

Please standardize the title of the email chain as [Tournament Name] [Round x] [Aff] v [Neg].

Zoom

1. I will say "slower" twice, and if it becomes more incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

2. I'll have my camera on during your speeches and my RFD.

Kindness

1. If a team asks you to not spread, please make the accommodation. If you don't, you can still win the debate, but I'll dunk your speaks.

2. If your arguments discuss sensitive issues, talk about it before the round. If there aren't any alternatives, please be thoughtful moving forward.

K Affs

1. I personally lean 80/20 in favor of reading a plan. I end up voting 50/50.

2. Debates should be about competing scholarship or literature, not about ones self.

3. DA/CP debate makes as many good people as it does bad people.

Speaks

1. I'm tough on speaker points.

2. I'm very expressive, so you'll know whether I vibe with what you're saying or not.

3. Technical, well organized policy debates make smooth brain feel good.

4. DA + Case or T 2NRs are always impressive and brilliant.

5. Copy/pasting cards into the body will drop your speaks .1 every time it happens.

Have fun!

Hoon Ko

Philosophy:

I am a more old school judge. I will be open to all arguments but those I am not familiar with, if the debaters could explain fully their arguments, warrants, links, it would help me to judge the round fairly and completely. Also, I may not flow all your arguments if you go full speed - if you can slow down a bit, I'll be able to flow your arguments. Enunciation and clarity will help a lot, as will pausing at the right times.

I have not judged on the topic this year, so I am not familiar at all with the affs/arguments.

I love solid, full analysis and support for claims. That doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but the more specifics, the better. At the same time, I love framing and weighing and big picture analysis as well.

I'm not familiar with most kritiks, but I will be open to them, and if well explained, I will be able to evaluate the arguments. Please assume I know nothing about the kritik or the norms for judging them but I will listen to your arguments if well explained. If you refer to terms or arguments very quickly, as if everyone knows them in kritiks, I will not know what you are arguing, and I can't vote on what I don't understand.

I am more familiar with policy arguments and I love a great case debate. I also love a great T debate.

I will vote on almost anything. I like theory. I flow CX.

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

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.

Judging Paradigm for John Overing

I debated in NDT-CEDA policy for UC Berkeley and in Nat-Circ and Trad Lincoln-Douglas for Loyola High School. I've judged over 250 rounds and competed in just as many.

Email: johnovering@berkeley.edu

Pre-Round Paradigm-Viewing:

Win the case, win the debate. Do impact calculus.

Here's how you win in front of me:

1. Identify the issue that will win you the round

2. Collapse to that issue and win it

3. Explain why it outweighs other considerations or should be evaluated first

Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal or unpopular stuff. Go for whatever you want, even if it's an unorthodox take. I'm here to evaluate what you put before me, not impose my beliefs onto your arguments.

Disclosure

I am willing to vote on disclosure theory. Should you read it? Sure, UNLESS your opponent is new to debate. I'm very opposed to disclosure theory against students new to the activity.

Speaker Points

- Debate well, do something new or interesting, or give me an easy decision in a polite way.

- Open-source disclosure will make me more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this.

- Show me your flow after the round and I'll add 0.1 to 0.3 speaks. If requested, I will give feedback on your flow.

Poor behavior will affect your speaks, though (barring extreme cases) I'll keep such issues out of my decision.

Notes:

I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.

I flow cross-ex and prep. I rarely flow off speech docs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been a Speech and Debate coach since 2016 and have a background in teaching philosophy, literature, and critical theory. I'm most familiar with Public Forum, though I have exposure to Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, and Speech events as well. I do flow, but I can't always flow as fast as you speak, so I appreciate taglines and signposting.

Public Forum: Make your impacts clear, and do a lot of weighing. If you're not interacting with the opponents arguments and weighing impacts, I've got nothing to vote on. I like to pay attention to cross, but you should bring it up in your speech if you want me to put it on the flow. Don't bring up new information in Final Focus if you value your speaks. I don't vote on extinction impacts without empirical evidence.

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm OK with theory and performance; I don't like tricks. I won't vote for phobic arguments

For email chain: empireofme@gmail.com

currently teach and coach debate at Saint Mary's Hall in San Antonio.

experience:

high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united
college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio
coaching: 2 years coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, coached nine years as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx. 1.5 years as the director of speech and debate at San Marcos High School, 2.5 years as director of speech and debate at James Madison High School... currently the director of debate at Saint Mary's Hall.

former writer/ researcher for wisecrack: this does not help you.

***note: please don't call me Matt or Matthew, it is jarring and distracts me. If you must refer to me by name please call me reichle [rike-lee].

(updated sections are marked with a *)

*TOP SHELF COMMENT*

Please, please, please slow down a bit, stress clarity when speaking, and give me pen time during analytic/ theoretical arguments. I AM NOT FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE SPEECH DOCUMENT--I genuinely believe that debate is a communicative activity and I should not have to rely on the speech document to decipher the arguments you are making. If this sounds real grouchy and sounds like "get off my lawn" old man talk... fair enough.

What I mean is this: I like to think that I am working hard to listen and think during the debate and looking up from my flow makes me think about all sorts of things that are not helpful for the debate... (the posters in the room, fashion choices, the last few words of episode 12 of Andor, the amount of Hominy I should add to Pazole... etc.)... all sorts of things that are not helpful for your decision. So help me out a bit. Please.

***The Rest***

*Digital Debates:

Please consider the medium and slow down a bit/ be more purposeful or aware of clarity--the added noises of a house (animals, small children, sirens, etc.) make it a bit harder for me to hear sometimes.

Please try to not talk over one another in cross-examination: it hurts my head.

*proclamation:
I proclaim, that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (I suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment) . I understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and I am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that I am lucky enough to judge. I am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that I afford members of a writing group--and as such I am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect.

Ultimately debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.

I debated for four years in the mid-to-late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.

*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me. The more depth and explanation the better.

*strategy is also something that I reward. I would like to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and I don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. Either way: the story of the round is important to me and I would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). I think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case I am missing something. Illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.


*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters. I flow the entire round (including as much of the the text of the evidence as I can get) unless I know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.

Topicality—I don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is a viable strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.

*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.

Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.

*theory: I need to flow. I can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. Also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.


*paperless issues: prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer/ when you are ready to email your cards (not continue to write blocks as you 'send' your email). Completely understandable if you send the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. Learn to send evidence to a speech document.


It becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how I view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. It seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.

While the formula will apply to some extent I would like to say that i am in every way honest when I say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. Do this and I say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. Be the debater that you are, not who you think I want you to be.

That being said; this is who I assume you should be: kind. Be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. There is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.


have fun. have a nice year.

Updated 11/13/16


I debated for four years at Dougherty Valley High School, and competed in LD for three years. I mostly competed in circuit LD and earned a bid to the TOC in my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pittsburgh and am double-majoring in philosophy and communication.

You can do whatever and I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on. That being said, I prefer to see kritiks and/or theory, as that was the majority of what I read in high school. I often enjoy a good straight-up policy aff, but if your strategy is going hard for a generic DA/CP you probably want someone else to judge you.


SPEED
Go as fast as you want, but PLEASE be clear. I’m probably not going to yell clear at you. Just be clear. Pls.

Also, this should be obvious, but when you tell me the order before your speech I expect you to follow it. Additionally, if you’re about to deviate from the speech doc and extemp some arguments, TELL ME. I hate it when debaters jump from the speech doc to random arguments off the top of their head and back again without warning. Keep it organized and let me know where you are and where you’re going. Again, this is pretty basic but it seems like a lot of debaters are doing this now.


THEORY, T, AND FRAMEWORK
As a general perspective to all theory arguments (including topicality and framework), I tend to think of these debates as competing models for debate (this can also occasionally be a valuable way to frame kritik vs theory debates). A good overview comparing the use of one interpretation over the other as a way to evaluate debates is important. Tell me the story of the theory debate; how does theory shape the debate space and why is your advocacy the best way to interpret and perceive debate?


THEORY
Go for it, whether or not there’s legitimate abuse. I think good theory debates are educational, and I really appreciate debaters who take the time to really flesh out their theory arguments. I generally prefer one or two well-constructed theory shells to a lot of short, blippy ones. That said, theory spikes in the AC are fine. One minute of offense and five minutes of theory spikes is a legit strategy, if that’s your thing.

I default to competing-interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I’m happy to vote on an RVI if you win RVIs good.

My one caveat to theory is that I don’t like it when debaters genuinely read a shell that’s like: “my opponent read such a complex argument, and because I don’t get it I should win.” I’ll still vote on this if you win it, but seriously, debate is about a clash of arguments. Reading a theory shell that avoids the point of debate itself will not make me happy.


TOPICALITY
When you’re going to read topicality (and I mean topicality in the sense that you are actually contesting what an operative word or phrase in the resolution means, not framework or a theory shell about the round itself), I find that the best T debates are about linguistics. That is, you should be debating why the word or phrase means something specific in the context of the topic. Language is a fascinating thing, and the way language is understood is what I feel T debates should be about. Evaluating T debates is a lot less interesting when I have to listen to you spread a bunch of blips. Technical skill is important, but I think it shouldn’t come at the expense of a serious and deep discussion about what the words of the resolution actually mean. Topicality challenges the meaning of words, so that should be your focus. In other words, I think your interpretation and justification for it should be as important as the rest of the T debate.


KRITIKS
I love kritiks. Read any kritik you want. The most important thing is being able to intelligently and clearly explain the kritik and its implications (and substantively leverage it against what your opponent is reading, especially theory). It’s obvious when debaters are reading a k they understand, and I urge you to have at least a basic understanding of what you’re reading. If you can give detailed and educational answers to cx questions about your k, that’s a good sign. If you’re just repeating tags, that’s a bad sign. I find that kritikal debate is the most educational and interesting type of debate, and the best k rounds are ones that genuinely inspire thoughtfulness and challenge mindsets. Good explanations, articulations of the alternative, and overviews about the specific worldview that the kritik advocates are crucial.

Also (and this is more of a personal view than a paradigmatic stance), postmodern philosophers buried in your backfiles are not the only source of good kritikal literature out there. Read more. Cut your own cards. Honestly, even Plato is easily just as kritikal as any of the authors debaters are reading now. If you take the time to actually read and learn about authors outside of the usual k authors you could create some seriously valuable and educational positions, and I think that is what the activity of debate should be about. That’s just my opinion though.


K VERSUS THEORY
I default to evaluating k before theory, but I can be persuaded otherwise. That being said, I think it is crucially important to really clash and evaluate the fairness first claims against the kritikal role of the ballot. It usually isn’t enough to spread a blip about not being able to evaluate the truth of the kritik without fairness. I find that most of the good kritikal debaters take time to explain and flesh out their role of the ballot and leverage the specifics of their position against the fairness claims on theory. If you want to win theory first, you must be doing work on this debate. Don’t just read a few cards with blippy explanations. Take some time to compare the implications and meanings of those cards against the worldview of the kritik.

Please don’t assume this means that I’m always going to vote for k before theory, or that as a theory debater you’ll have to do significantly more work than your kritikal opponent. I have voted for theory over a kritik plenty of times. I just want to see debaters who are committed to explaining the framing of the debate in a way that is substantial and meaningful.


PREP TIME
Don’t steal prep. Flex prep is fine (honestly, why wouldn’t it be?). Compiling the speech doc and emailing/flashing does not count as prep. That being said, it shouldn’t take more than 30 seconds to compile and email.


SPEAKER POINTS
Be respectful. Creativity and humor will earn you higher speaks. The average number of speaker points I gave last year was 28.48. I was a bit of a point fairy last year though, so I’ve tried to rein it in a little.


Please ask me questions before the round. If you’re confused about anything, I am happy to explain it. Specific questions are usually a lot easier for me to give good answers to and are a lot more helpful to you. Asking if I vote for X argument or how to get higher speaks is fine, but those things tend to be highly dependent on what actually happens in the specific round.

Please include me on your email chain for the round. I much prefer email chains to flashing. It’s much faster and a lot easier to include me.

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Email chain -- shivane.sabharwal98@gmail.com

berkeley update: havent judged in 2 years so go slow. also theres a lotta inexperienced debaters in the pool. be nice or your speaks shall suffer!

I debated at Mission San Jose High School in California for four years and graduated in 2016. I mostly read util and theory.

Debate is your activity and I don't have a strong preference for any particular sort of argument, so do whatever you want. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted.

I mainly assign speaks based on strategy and argument quality.

Please stop reading theory, especially disclosure theory, against debaters that are clearly less experienced than you. your speaks will suffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

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

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Evergreen Valley '16

Berkeley '20

NPDI/TOC Update: I wrote this paradigm for circuit LD, but the general concept stands. In high school, I competed in parli sporadically, and qualified to TOC. In college, I competed & coached in several different formats, including APDA, BP, and Worlds Schools.

General

I will vote for whatever you present a compelling argument for. I default to an offense/defense paradigm, and ethical confidence on the framework level. I presume that all levels of the debate, e.g. theory, kritiks, contentions, etc. are equally important unless you argue otherwise. I flow cross-ex answers. To quote Christian Tarsney, my favorite debates are (1) philosophical debates focused on normative framework, (2) empirical debates with lots of weighing and evidence comparison, (3) just plain stock debates, (4) "critical" debates revolving around incoherent non-arguments from obscurantist pseudo-philosophers, and (5) theory debates, in that order.

Contentions

Weigh everything. I have a high threshold for extensions (i.e. you must re-explain the claim, impact, and warrant). You must explain why you win an argument and why it's a voting issue even if your opponent drops it.

Theory

Theory must include all the elements of a structured shell. You don't have to say "A is the..., B is the..." but you must mention an interpretation, violation, standard, and voter sometime in order for me to vote on the argument. I default to dropping the argument and competing interpretations on the theory debate.

Kritiks

Be creative! I will act as if I have no knowledge of the authors or literature you reference outside of what you have told me.

Other

I enjoy technical debate, I also understand that not everyone does. If your opponents are in the latter category, please don't use speed, jargon, or obscurity to try to get an advantage.

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. You can contact me at v.a.sinnarkar@berkeley.edu.

I debated LD for 2 years at Keller High School competing on both the local (TFA) and national circuit. I graduated from the George Washington University in 2016, where I did Policy for 3 years, British Parliamentary for 2 years, and public debate for 4 years. I'm currently a computer science Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley. 

First, some general pointers. I try not to intervene when it comes to my role as a judge. I'm fine with any argument or style of debate you're comfortable with as long as you explain to me how your arguments interact in the round.

Weighing impacts is essential. If you don't do the work in-round to weigh, I'll be forced to intervene and your speaks will suffer.  I feel like this happens most in Clash of Civs debates.  I prefer clear articulations of impacts in these rounds - e.g. what does the K give you that a topical aff wouldn't, or what education type is exclusive to a topical aff.  A pet peeve of mine is when debates are like two ships passing in the night, so be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's.

Speed: Speed won't be a problem for me, as long as you are clear. Don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of getting a few extra words in. I will yell clear or louder once or twice but after that, your speaker points will be docked and I'll fault you if I don't flow an argument due to clarity issues. Also, don't spread through a massive block of analytics or theory. Give appropriate breaks to write and please read slow enough to allow me to flow your interp! I will dock your speaks if you are being unnecessarily fast against a debater who is clearly more inexperienced - use common sense and be courteous if it is obvious you are better and don't need to spread.

Speaks: I cater speaker points on the tournament I am at and base them off of strategy and style. If you utilize CX, your speaks will go up. Your speaks are likely to be higher if you are kind and courteous to your opponent and me as a judge. My pet peeve is when debaters are rude or assholes in round, but doing this will only affect your speaker points.

Misc:

• Prep time stops when the speech doc has been assembled.  If you take a suspiciously long time to flash/email/share your speech doc, I will dock speaks harshly and call you out on it.  
• I haven't judged at all this year, and have judged primarily policy the past 4 years, so don't assume I know topic-specific nuances. 
• I like to be included on email chains - katstasaski [at] gmail.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me or ask me before round.
• Have fun!  :)

I've outlined specifics about the ways I evaluate LD and policy below.

LD

Resolution: I default to a truth-testing view of debate where the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the neg's is to prove it false. I'd prefer some standard or weighing mechanism to view the round. I'm fine with philosophically heavy frameworks, as long as you have warrants for them and can explain how your offense links.  I've ran non-topical and semi-topical affirmatives in the past, so I'm fine with non-topical K's, but be ready to explain why you couldn't have run a topical affirmative on this topic.

Extentions: When you extend a piece of evidence, you need to extend the warrant, not only the claim.  If a piece of evidence goes conceded, your extention can be short and sweet, but you still need to extend the warrant.  If you shadow-extend and blow up an argument in the 2AR, I'm unlikely to give it a lot of weight.

Theory/T: Theory or topicality needs to be in the form of a shell with an interp, violation, and voters. If you just tell me why your opponent is being unfair without any explanation of what I should do in terms of the ballot, I will probably disregard the argument. You need to be super clear on if the implication is drop the debater, drop the argument, etc. I default to theory is NOT an RVI unless reasons are made for why I should allow them. I default competing interps, but feel free to make arguments for reasonability. I defualt drop the argument.  My defaults only come into play if no arguments stating otherwise are made in-round. 

Kritiks: Please be able to explain what your K is saying. I was a kritikal policy debater and I love kritiks, but if you can't give a clear, concise explanation of what your argument is saying, please don't run a K. I prefer links that specific to the aff being run, not the resolution, but I will listen to either.  Moreover, I'm not a fan of rejection alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them. Just be ready to explain why your K negates and answer theoretical objections.

Plans, DAs, and CPs: I am fine with these types of arguments in LD. When I debated LD, I ran a lot of plans and DAs, and I also ran them on the policy circuit. I think a good LARP debate is awesome. However, if you do choose to engage in this type of debate, justify your framework!  You need to do the work to justify util if you have extension impacts - it is not a given in my book.  I also recognize that these type of arguments are run different in LD vs Policy, so don't assume that just because I did policy that I won't listen to T.

Policy 

Topicality: I'm fine with topicality and theory, as long as you are doing all of the work for me to vote on it. I default to competing interpretations. Also, be sure to weigh strength of link to education and fairness. Weigh your standards against any counterstandards. Nothing is more annoying than multiple undisputed standards with no impact analysis. Also, if you choose to run ASPEC, you should ask the opposing team to specify an agent in CX. If they fail to specify one and are being abusive, then you can think about running ASPEC. I'm not a fan of petty theory arguments, so if you're adding a random 30 second shell into your 6-off, probably not worth it.

Ks: I was a kritikal debater and I'm fine with evaluating K's in debate. That being said, please be able to explain what your K is saying. Don't run a kritik if you don't understand what it is saying. If you can't clearly and concisely summarize your kritik, you shouldn't run one in front of me. I also prefer links that are specific to the affirmative, not the resolution, but I'll listen to either.

CPs: I'm down with CPs, but if you read a consult CP, there'd better be a damn good reason why. I'd prefer CPs to be uber specific to the aff's plan and have a solid solvency advocate.

I debated policy in the 1980's. At this time, spreading and counterplans were common, but Theory, K's, and other progressive approaches to debate were still on the horizon. That said, I look forward to judging rounds which provide creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions, since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more and more alike, especially as the season progresses.

Although I am okay with speed, be sure to slow down or vary your tone for tags and sources.

If you run a K, I do not have a background in philosophy or some of the areas that are the basis of K's. If you take this tack, be sure to explain how your sources support your argument.

On framework be sure to set up the weighing mechanism for the round - I don't want to be an interventionist.

I do my best to be tabula rasa, even when I cringe at the incorrect application of evidence to arguments. It is up to your opponent to note this and bring it to my attention. That said, the one place where I find it hard to be completely open is in the case of education or fairness theory. Unless the competition has been sketchy (e.g. disclosing one case and running another), I think theory is a distraction from the part of the debate I look forward to - the clash of arguments related to the resolution.

Speaks: Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases.

About me:

- I debated policy 4 years at James Logan High School, mostly on the circuit

- I now coach and judge intermittently

My feelings towards certain positions:

T and Theory

Outline an abuse story. Defend a world interpretation.

Disad/Case

Weigh worlds. Explain link stories. I will vote on terminal non uniqueness.

Counterplans

Textual competition counts as competition. Win a net benefit.

The K

Explain the alt. Be extremely clear with framework. Explain the role of the ballot. Embed clash and make comparisons in your overviews.

Pofo

Be respectful. Arguments in the final focus need to be in the summary, warranted. Weighing should start in the summary. Don't be unreasonably omitting defense in the first summary.

Speaks

If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks. If you're good for debate, you'll get better speaks (s/o Phoebe Kuo).

Miscellaneous

You can try to earn +.1 speak for making @four_pins -esque jokes.

Arjun Tambe

Co-director, The Debate Intensive

Stanford '19
Palos Verdes Peninsula ‘15
Conflicts: PV Peninsula, La Canada, Dougherty Valley

Send speech docs to - arjuntambe1 AT gmail

General Beliefs / Rules

-I will not vote on arguments I did not flow or did not understand. Being unclear in the constructive will greatly increase the explanation required for the 2NR.
-My default is an offense-defense paradigm. Skepticism is defense. You will need to justify a truth-testing paradigm in order to win a skepticism argument.

-I will not vote for a Floating PIK. If your alternative says in the 1NC that it includes the plan, that's fine; but if the plan was never included in the alt in the 1NC then I will not allow the 2NR to claim, for the first time in the debate, that the alt includes the plan.
-Theory: I lean against voting on theory and topicality. I believe it should take a substantial violation of fairness and education to decide the debate on procedural grounds. Just as virtually everyone agrees that "I meet" definitively answers theory, even without offense, I think other responses that demonstrate there is no abuse can do the same. Voting for theory risks over-punishment, which seems just as bad as allowing the violation. If the offense on theory is small, the risk of over-punishment seems to outweigh the reasons to vote for theory. Most arguments for competing interps does not justify why a "risk of offense" actually justifies deciding the debate on theory.
-Argument quality matters, not just the extent to which an argument is answered. Bad arguments are less likely to be true, and dropped arguments aren’t 100% true. Similarly, framework is impact calculus – it makes certain impacts more or less important, not the only impacts that matter.
-Presumption is almost always irrelevant.
-2AR and 2NR impact calculus is not a new argument.
-2AR cards are a legitimate response to new 2NR cards.

-CX matters. Being unable to explain your arguments in CX seriously counts against both your arguments and your speaker points, and being unable to ask good questions in CX counts against your speaker points. "You can make that argument" is a cop-out, not an answer, to a good CX question.

Hard and Fast Rules

-You must disclose or give cites to me upon request. If a position is not disclosed I won't disregard it, but I am easily persuaded by disclosure theory arguments.
-You must make your speech doc during prep time.
-You must be willing to email or flash cases. If your opponent does not have a laptop you must have a viewing computer, pass pages, or lend your opponent your laptop.
-Card clipping or evidence ethics violations result in a loss-20. If you think your opponent has done either of these things, stop the round for an ethics challenge.
-You must have proper cites for your cards (including author name, publication date if available, and source at the least). I will disregard evidence that lacks proper citations.
-Please avoid adding brackets to your evidence. I would prefer if you remove them or at least restrict them to tense, punctuation, and offensive language.

Arguments I Do and Do Not Find Persuasive
-Many people oddly do not add author quals to their cards in LD, and this could be a good way to scrutinize their evidence, especially if it is published in a blog or opinion page.

Counterplans and disads

-Try or die is not always persuasive because the probability of the aff's extinction impacts are, usually, relatively low.

-I tend to think disads like elections or politics are very improbable; however, that's also true of tiny aff advantages with poor, scrapped-together evidence.

-I like well thought-out "plan flaw" arguments when the aff's plan is poorly or strangely written, and think "plan flaw" should be extended more often. However, "plan flaw" is only a complete argument if you explain why the plan isn't enactable, and why it should be.

-I enjoy process counterplans and think they should be read more often.

Topicality and Theory
-I lean neg in Topicality vs Plan-less Aff debates, but end up voting aff just as much as I vote neg. This is often because the neg lacks an external impact to topicality.
-1 conditional advocacy seems okay, but I can be persuaded otherwise. 2 seems on the fence.
-I generally think that education outweighs fairness.

Philosophy
-I do not find the strategy of reading a liberty NC and dropping the aff's claim that the plan will prevent everyone on earth from dying to be persuasive. No serious philosopher would defend such a view. Such NCs are only persuasive to me when coupled with good case defense.
-A clear explanation of what incorrect assumption your opponent's framework relies on that yours doesn't is far more effective than saying your meta-meta-epistemology "precludes" their arguments.

Critiques
-I assume kritiks/links to the aff’s representations should be part of the debate. However, I think I am easier than average to persuade that the debate should center only on the plan.

-Permutations solve links to the tune of "the aff didn't talk about X." The negative needs at least a basic explanation of a link argument to have a chance in a K debate. The less central the neg's link is to the thesis of the affirmative, the more likely it is that the case outweighs.

-Dense, obtuse evidence for a kritik needs to be interpreted and explained thoroughly enough for it to make sense as an actual argument. I often find the evidence in various postmodernist critiques to be very unpersuasive, and it often criticizes something not directly relevant to the aff.
-I often find alt solvency to be under-explained by the neg, and think "alt fails" is very often a persuasive argument. However, I also find that alt solvency is often not answered well by the aff.

-I do not find broad, sweeping "root cause" and other arguments (e.g., "the aff evidence should be distrusted because capitalism corrupts academia") to be persuasive at all, unless they are applied well to the aff.
-There is almost always value to life, so value to life does not "non-unique" extinction, though it can still be an impact.
-More critiques should be impact turned. The cap K is a good example.

Stylistic preferences
With a few exceptions, I find explanations of "how the round breaks down" to be annoying and a waste of time.
You do not need to waste a ton of time "extending" your aff card by card if there wasn't case defense.

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.

Tldr; Debate is first and foremost an educational experience that needs to be accessible and accommodating to all.

General Preferences: Email chain me at ktotz173@gmail.com before you give your speech please and thank you. I’m fine with flex prep as long as everyone else in the room is cool with it. Speed is fine but debate is still an activity about communicating so please for the love of all that is holy, enunciate and differentiate your tone. Also slow down on analytics ESPECIALLY if they aren’t on the doc. If you just give me 7 minutes of monotone spread I will not be happy. I am doing my best but I can only type so fast. Most importantly, debate is a learning experience first and foremost, I don’t appreciate anyone taking away learning opportunities just for a win. Let me know if you have specific questions on this paradigm, debate, or just life in general before the round starts! Good luck and debate well.

T: - new and improved! Legitimate theory is always cool, friv theory is cool with me as long as it doesn’t take away from anyone’s learning. This means I’m not down for frivolous theory against a kid who has never once encountered theory, that’s not cool. Topicality/framework against K’s, particularly debate space K’s, is really iffy to vote on for me, I will 100% always prefer that you actually engage the meat of the K. Topicality and framework against pretty much anything else is cool with me, but again my threshold for voting on it is pretty high if it’s against anything other than a topical version of the aff. In general, I tend towards standards of accessible education, competing interpretations, and portable skills.

K’s: - love a good k still!! Specific links are always very important; I LOVE a great link story! Perms of K’s need to be very well explained and I need to walk away knowing what the perm world would look like pretty clearly. This means that if you’re deciding between 3 perms with no explanation and 1 really good, well-explained perm, you should always go for the one perm response in front of me. I love a good K aff, but be ready to defend it on the framework and the body level of the K. Debate space K’s will always come before T, all other types of K’s I’m willing to hear debate about which comes first but I tend towards K unless there’s some really great accessible education claims out of the T.

CPs: - nice!!! But please give really good solvency advocates, especially on PICs. Down for PICs, but also down for PIC theory. Get creative with perms but, like with K perms, you need to give me a brief explanation of what the perm world would look like if you want me to vote on it.

DAs: Down, specific link chains are really important to me, as are specific link beginnings. I’m over the ‘any international change will lead to nuke war’ arguments, but I’m very down for specific analysis on why a particular action triggers the DA. The more chains in the link, the less likely I am to buy that the DA turns case.

Framing: In general, utilitarianism and philosophy are kind of fake arguments and I’ll tend to vote on K responses to those arguments, but I do still enjoy a good phil v. phil debate and can follow most phil as long as it’s clearly articulated outside of case.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

I debated for La Canada High School from 2013-2017.

Email: axyzhao@gmail.com

POLICY

Familiar with common kritiks like neolib, security, and biopower. Please thoroughly explain your links in the context of the aff.

I'm probably best at evaluating a counterplan/DA strategy, but obviously will listen to everything else to the best of my ability.

I err neg on condo, but don't default judge kick.

Know less about the topic than you do, so please over-explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon.

__

LD

I default to epistemic modesty when evaluating philosophy/framework debate. "Winning framework" does not mean that I will only evaluate impacts under that framework; I will treat framework as a weighing mechanism, making certain impacts more or less important than others.

I default to debate as a comparison of advocacies - you have to win offense to your advocacy.

Explicit extensions of every card in the 1AC are not necessary. Debaters only have to explain their offense briefly if it's dropped.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution.

I don't want to hear spreading, kritiks, theory, etc. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

LD

I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.

Ideological stances that might influence prefs:

1. Fairness and logic are good—args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff—I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument—anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important—I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards—I'd rather you explain them to me.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.

---

Traditional LD

I will NOT hesitate drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved.

1. Please time yourselves. Using a phone is fine.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion/framework is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face :(.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
6. I prefer voting issues to be given as they arise on the flow, not in a discrete section at the end of rebuttal speeches.
7. You do not need to ask me to use your prep time (although I will keep track of time myself).
8. You can read my longer LD paradigm at the bottom for a more detailed view at my decision-making process.
9. You MUST follow the NSDA Evidence Rules (High School Manual here, shorter version here). I care deeply about evidentiary ethics in an academic event and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent allowed by the rules up to, and including, voting against you.
10. I hate evasion. Direct clash with your opponent's central points is preferred.
11. I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits.

Good luck!

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.