I am a 2A at Westminster and this is my fifth year of debate.

Short Pre-Round Paradigm

- add me to the email chain b4 the db8 please -- daftari.manav@gmail.com

- Do you what you do best. Go for any argument you want to. I will vote on any argument that you win. Do NOT let this judge paradigm influence your arguments in the debate.

- I prefer debates to be about the topic.

- if you plan on going for the kritik make sure you explain the alt and most important parts of the K to me

- I love tricky and complex neg strategies to test the affirmatives internal links. Specific CPs are the most fun to see debated out. This doesn't mean I won't vote for a generic strategy.

- Be yourself-- I love jokes, especially good ones. Any jokes about people I know (especially harrison hall, Arjun Mohan, Chris Eckert, and Alex Greene) that are funny might influence speaks. But be respectful.

- I think all affs should defend USfg action.

- I will award each person will +.1 speaker points if they show me your flows before the decision is delivered and they are neat and have been used in the debate.

Long Version:

General Notes:

- Seriously, Do what you want!! Debate is an activity that should be fun for you and everyone else. Don't let this influence you in any way.

- Be respectful. I don't like disrespectful people. I think everyone should be treated equally and debate should be a place where everyone has respect.

- I have found myself nearly obsessed with specific, substantive engagement between the two teams — and increasingly frustrated when one team sidesteps opportunities for well-evidenced clash between arguments in favor of generic, all-purpose positions or supposed trump cards that set aside the majority of the debate. The team at fault — given its responsibility to respond — is often the negative, and on some topics I vote aff at a dizzying clip. -- Seth Gannon

- CLIPPING IS NOT ALLOWED -- I WILL FOLLOW THE SPEECH DOCS

Topicality:

- I think I defer to reasonability. If the aff's interpretation of the topic is reasonable for the topic and doesn't make it impossible to be negative, then I think there is no abuse and no reason to vote negative.

- I do love a good T debate though. Please have an adequate case list for the topic for the affirmative.

Kritiks:

- I am down for topic specific Kritiks. But not the best for 1-off K strategies.

- I think the permutation is the most important part to win for the negative. Random disads to the permutation are NOT reasons I will disregard the permutation.

- You have to win links to the permutation and not links to the aff where the permutation changes the way the aff works or is conceptualized.

- I think the aff gets to weigh it against the K, but can be convinced otherwise.

- The two most important parts of the K debate for me is the alternative and the link debate. Please explain these two parts very clearly.

- Aff-- I love the argument "links must be predicated on the plan text." If this can be executed correctly, I will probably vote on it, and maybe bump speaks.

CPs:

- Love them. Specific and complex CPs are great. Make sure to explain them.

- I am not great on counterplan competition questions. So if you think the CP is competitive, explain why.

- If you are aff, go for the best impacted out solvency deficit to the CP and don't try to spread yourself too thin. One amazing solvency deficit > a couple decent solvency deficits

DAs:

- Love them. Explain the link.

Theory:

- I don't have any pre-dispositions with theory questions. Prove in round abuse.

- I really do feel conditionality is not that bad UNLESS it is above 3 condo.

Have Fun.

I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

Current student at UGA

put me on the email chain: shlokadanave@gmail.com

tl;dr

We are all here to have fun so make sure to be respectful and enjoy yourself. Death is bad. Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Anything that seems slightly unethical is Bad. Tech over Truth

Long Version

Case - I love a good case debate. Aff make sure to explain your impacts and if it's a complicated screwed up internal link chain, you are going to have to spend a lot of time on that for me to vote on that. Make sure to have good impact comparison. Neg please don't undercover case just so that you can read like 8 off instead of 6, I end up leaning aff in these types of debates because they have to take the burden to explain their aff and answer all of your off case when you don't even take the time to address their internal links

DA - I have no issues with these. Again make sure to impact things out, i notice that a lot of novices don't do this and it's really important for you to win the link level and the impact level of the debate. This topic doesn't have a lot of good DA's but aff specific Disads are cool. Aff, straight turn it that's fun.

T - I love t debates. Treat this like a DA ans don't just ramble on with a bunch of t buzzwords, make sure to actually explain your impacts. Make sure to be specific on the limits question of the debate because a lot of teams don't end up explaining that well. I default aff on reasonability if not answered.

CP - Aff when they read cheating CP's go for theory, if you do it right I'll vote on it, I really hate voting for cheaty cp's. On another note, treat a CP like they would treat your aff. read DA's read impact turns and extend solvency. conditionally is usually bad but i can be convinced otherwise. Neg, you need to make sure you do comparison on the sufficiency level and also properly answer solvency deficits and DO NOT GROUP PERMS. Do some actual explanation on your answers to each perm and make sure to differentiate them. You can't group PDB with an intrinsic perm.

K - I am not well versed in K literature. I will not vote on anything I don't understand so make sure you explain well. Links need to be contextualized to the aff and not just to their impacts. I'm fine with generics like Cap, Security, and Fem, everything else will need more explanation. I won't vote on anything unethical.

Impact Turns - I actually love impact turns I have no issues with these but no unethical impact turns and make sure you do this right. A lot of novices have confusion on this type of argument but make sure you have learned how to read impact turns before you do it.

Overall - just be nice and make sure you are respectful to everyone, including me and everything will go smoothly.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta High School

TLDR

We're here to have fun so be assertive but not overly aggressive. Please don't say anything offensive or unethical. Tech over truth and please use email chain if you can -- my email is ishadeshmukh01@gmail.com

Case

Case defense is so important. Aff make sure you explain all your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's very complicated. I don't think the neg should just undercover case and should still go on case if they go for a counterplan. A debate where the neg gets the aff down to very low probability and weighs their off case against this is very interesting.

Impact Turns

I love these debates especially on this topic with all these bad DAs. Make sure you have quite a bit of evidence if you decide to go for these and know how to explain them very well.

DA

Don't have any issues with these but make sure you focus on the impact level of the debate. Read a lot of evidence, especially in the block so you can pressure the 1AR. I understand the 1AR is a time pressured speech but make sure you answer the turns case arguments. I LOVE PTX but the internal link chains for these disads can be a bit confusing sometimes so make sure you thoroughly explain this in the block. PTX theory isn't a thing -- please don't go for it.

T

I don't think this is great on this topic but I do love T debates in general. Spend a lot of time on the limits question of the debate and don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords -- explain everything. I default on reasonability if dropped.

CP

CP debates are great but not a fan of process or other abusive CPs and am likely to vote on theory in such cases. Neg - don't group perms and make sure you have a clear net benefit. Aff - make sure you have good solvency deficits, should be well explained but I will read evidence if I have to.

Condo -- I will vote on condo if dropped even if the interp is no conditional advocacies. 2-3 conditional advocacies is fine but I will vote aff if they are able to explain why it's absuive -- make sure your arguments on condo are round specific.

K

fine with these but not the biggest fan so please explain them well. I'm well accustomed with fem, cap, security, but will need more explanation on other Ks.

I debated LD for four years in high school and policy for 2 in college. I feel comfortable evaluating a wide range of arguments. Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions pre round.

Alex Greene

Westminster

20 March 2018

Judging Philosophy

I view debate as an academic competition where one plays to win. Most importantly, I do not have any predispositions of arguments except for structural K's and K-affs. That being said, if you read either of those arguments, then I am probably not the best judge for you.

I think that 90% of life is presentation. So, make it good.

50 state fiat is a reason to reject the states counterplan in MOST, BUT NOT ALL instances.

You can put me on the email chain at: addiematteson@westminster.net

I am a librarian and the assistant coach for the Westminster Middle School debate team. I competed in forensics (speech, acting, and debate) at both the high school and college level. 

When judging, I look for well organized arguments, and I appreciate roadmaps. As a librarian, I am also keenly aware of information sources. I will be looking for clearly read tags, and I pay attention to the quality and currency of your sources. 

I am a Senior at Westminster and have been debating for 5 years mostly as a 2N.

Most importantly, be nice and have fun! I am going to try to keep this short, but feel free to ask me any questions.

Put me on the email chain - annacaroline2020@gmail.com

DAs - As a debater, I go for politics a lot. The most important thing for me here is impact calc. Tell me why I should vote for you in a way I can write on my ballot.

CPs - I love specific CPs! You should probably have a solvency advocate, condo is probably good, and PICs can be abusive? You can definitely win the opposite of any of these dispositions in front of me.

Ks - I probably don’t understand it going into the round, and I can’t vote for something without understanding what it is I am voting on. Don’t let that change your strat, just explain it to me! Novices should read plans.

T - I enjoy judging good T debates. I haven’t debated in a while, so I don’t know what is commonly considered T.

Westminster '21 Emory '25

Add me to the email chain - thebestsampablo@gmail.com

---

Top Level - Do what you do and don't over adapt to anything on this paradigm. I see this on a good amount of judge paradigms, but it's particularly important to me to leave my predispositions about debate at the door. Debate is ultimately for the debaters and I will try my best to listen and evaluate which team should get the ballot after 2 hours. As a debater, I'm most impressed by judges who try their best to be receptive to a wide range of debates and arguments. That being said, I'm not a robot and debate is a persuasive activity, so I will add some of my feelings about things that persuade/fail to persuade me in most instances below. Finally, if I make a mistake or something important wasn't in the RFD please post round me, I'm trying to become the best judge I can be.

---

I don't love hearing...

- Death/Suicide Good

- Most Spec arguments

- "Embedded Clash" / "It was answered in the overview"

- Heavy perm focus in K v K debates (I am not someone looking to give K AFF teams an easy out on the perm, especially if the link is well debated)

- Spreading in theory debates

- Counter-interpretations that don't define words in the resolution

- "____ controls the direction of ____"

- The fiat double bind

- Prefs based arguments

---

I enjoy hearing

- NEG strategies that are AFF specific or at least interact with the AFF a high level

- Impact turns

- Evidence directed arguments

- Strategic trolling (it's not that funny if you lose)

- Slow theory debates

---

If you're trying to figure out where to pref me

- Check the "I don't love hearing" section above

- I'm a 1A/2N

- I go to Westminster

- I'm a fifth year who's judged 25 novice rounds

- I have read a plan in most rounds on the AFF

- I go for K's somewhat frequently on the NEG

- I default to fairness being an impact and I think most other impacts on T are often not worth making and easily straight turnable

- In presumption debates I fall under the category of judges the defaults to negation theory not the category of judges that defaults to the world of least change

---

Speaker Points

Under 27.5 = You said something offensive, clipped, forged evidence or didn't follow speech times

27.5 - 28 = Needs work

28 - 28.5 = Some of the pieces were there but there's room for improvement

28.6 - 28.9 = Super solid, keep it up

29 - 29.4 = The best range of speaks I could realistically give, you demonstrated an excellent understanding of your arguments and executed

29.5 - 30 = One of the best debaters I've ever seen, first speaker material

---

If you have any questions please email me or ask before the round.

Vanderbilt University ‘21

Email chain- rohanpethkar21@gmail.com

rohan.v.pethkar@vanderbilt.edu

K- I am more familiar with traditional kritiks, but if you are able to persuasively define and defend your terminology and the assumptions of the AFF, I will vote for it. This is similar for K affs, though I am more susceptible to framework/topicality arguments from the opponent. For the benifit of the debate, I think the aff should use the USFG.

DA- Without good/specific links I probably won’t vote on the disad especially if the link seems generic. A DA that turns the case is better than one that outweighs the case, though any well-argued DA can win the round.

CP- I will give the aff the benefit of the doubt on counterplans and vote for the perm if argued well enough. The neg must explain why ther perm does not work, in other words, I probably won’t vote for a generic counterplan. I accept conditionality.

T- The neg must prove that there is real abuse done by the aff and the impacts of the violation. The neg, though, must have clearly defined limits. If the neg can prove the aff is far too broad to foster good debate, I will most likely vote for them.

Westminster / Northwestern

Put me on the email chain: christopherrascoe@gmail.com

Please slow down and be clear. Arguments that don’t make it on my flow can’t improve your odds of winning. In that vein, it only counts as an argument if I can articulate the line of reasoning put forward in the debate.

I will try to be objective. I will evaluate any arguments regardless of my personal opinions so long as they are not blatantly unethical. It should go without saying but do not personally harass or threaten your opponents. Besides those edge cases, there are essentially no arguments I’m willing to immediately dismiss.

I don't have a ton of in-depth topic knowledge.

Impact calculus / framing often decides debates. I am a good judge for ‘existential risk first’ if executed correctly.

I care about evidence quality and author qualifications. I find statistically / scientifically rigorous arguments persuasive.

I am a big fan of impact turns.

Planless Affs v Framework

I lean Neg. If you’re going to read a K Aff, your best bet is to go for one or two very well explained arguments against framework in the 2ar.

Neg vs Planless Affs

I’m good for framework or an impact turn where appropriate. If you want to go for the K, you’ll probably have to work hard to beat the perm.

Soft left / k affs with a plan text

Go for it! These are underrated.

Ks on the neg

I'm willing to vote for the K, but my bar for explanation and coherence is higher than most. A successful critique usually needs to prove the plan false and provide a competitive alternative. It’s up to you to argue that competition should something be other than purely functional.

Aff vs K

You should place a lot of pressure on alt solvency & competition. I’m also receptive to hardline responses / impact turns to the K where appropriate (e.g., cap good, heg good, securitization good).

Theory

I think conditionality is good. I’ll judge kick if you tell me to.

I’m indifferent about 'process CPs'.

I am willing to vote on disclosure theory.

T vs. Policy Affs

I usually find reasonability unpersuasive. Other than that, I don’t lean one way or the other.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

2a for 4 years at alpharetta

add me on the email chain saanya.saurabh@gmail.com

do whatever you want

no clipping

don’t be rude

time your own prep and speeches

clarity > speed

yes, you can tag team

most importantly, have fun

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

University of Georgia 2023

put me on the email chain: pooja.udeshi1126@gmail.com

**I haven't debated in awhile so if you read very specific things please explain them in depth.

Short Version:

-I won't vote on anything unethical: death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad.

-I'm mostly a policy debater so I'm not that familiar with K lit but I'm will vote on it if its explained well.

Case:

-the neg needs to spend time on case

-case turns are good

DA:

-I love a good disad debate, but if you're going for the disad you have to explain the link level.

-Subpointing is important and makes it easier to flow.

-If you're going for the DA you have to have compare the impacts to the Aff's.

T:

-I'm not a big fan of T debates, but if you're gonna go for it you have to explain it really well.

-In order to win a T debate the Neg has to explain compare the interps and explain why your's is better.

-You have to impact T out really well to win.

K:

-The neg has to contextualize the K to the Aff in order to win.

-I haven't read a lot of K literature, so you have to explain the K and the impacts to win.

-I won't vote on anything unethical.

CP:

-I love specific CP's

-The Aff can win on CP theory only if they can impact it out.

-If the Aff goes for the perm they have to explain how it would function.

K Affs:

-I'm not very familiar with K literature, but I'm willing to vote on anything that isn't unethical.

westminster 2020 (2a) – kavyadebate@gmail.com

do what you do best as long as you're respectful to everyone in the room!

case

1. explain your solvency mechanism

2. use the other team's ev against them

3. k affs -- defend something

t

1. impact analysis

2. explain why your interpretation is better than theirs

3. framework makes the game work

k

1. specific links to the plan are good

2. explain how the perm solves/doesn't solve

3. explain what a world of the alt looks like

cp

1. go hard on solvency (specific solvency advocates = good; specific solvency deficits = good)

2. why does the perm (not) solve?

3. offense is always good on this flow

da

1. turns case analysis is my favorite part of debate -- explain it well

2. specific links to the aff are good

3. politics disads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

theory

1. condo - will vote on condo but a warranted analysis of the distinction between both sides' interpretations is necessary

2. neg fiat - neg leaning on this

3. everything else - probably not a reason to reject the team

cx

1. set up arguments

2. know your arguments and evidence

3. don't take over your partner's cx unless they ask

speaks

i usually range from mid 28s to low 29s for novices

how to get extra speaks

1. solid evidence comparison -- +0.1

2. make a joke about any current westminster debater or any of my friends -- +0.1

3. add me to the email chain without me asking -- +0.1

*max 0.3 raise*

tl;dr: don't say something rude and i'll probably give you decent speaks :)

endnote

1. if i look confused, please explain your argument better

2. feel free to email me with questions if you have any (see email at the top)

3. happy debating!

whitakerdebates@gmail.com

Currently working with Alpharetta, previously worked with Chattahoochee. I debated throughout high school, then at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Central Oklahoma, and am now a member of U of West Georgia debate.

I’m comfortable with all speeds and styles, especially those regarding the k – I’m most familiar with poststructural + positional criticisms, though you should do whatever it is you do best – you can just as easily win with a plan, theory, framework, etc. If you want to test a sneaky new framework strategy, I'll happily adjudicate your chess match; if you're all about the Death K, well, I've done my fair share of that stuff too. Give me your best args and write my ballot. I privilege tech over truth and frequently vote for arguments that contravene my personal beliefs. I judge k affs frequently but this only thickens my belief that they need some relation to the resolution, even if only neg-neg. I thus also believe that the neg, in turn, needs to prove why either A) the aff links to harder to the k than squo does, or B) why that distinction doesn't matter - i.e. how I can vote without presumption and/or L/UQ or why presumption still goes neg, does not exist, sucks, whatever. I am not, personally, keen on the notion that presumption can flip aff, but am willing to entertain the argument and have voted on it when used to exploit a neg weakness.

I flow on paper, if you care. I'll say clear twice and then stop flowing anything incomprehensible. If you begin a speech in unsettling fashion (e.g. giving an inaccurate roadmap or jumping the gun with 400+wpm), I'll act flustered and require a few effervescently dramatic seconds to get my affairs in order. If I'm otherwise not flowing or I'm on the wrong sheet, it's because either you've created a mental backlog of arguments that I'm flowing in retrospect or I'm repackaging your arguments to make them more palatable to my flow, or both.

Some things that frustrate me: excessive rudeness (toward opponents or judges), offensive strategies (racism inevitable/good, for instance), and clipping (zeroes + L = bad time for you). The advent of digital debate brings with it a new and widespread sense of suspicion, and though I will do my best to catch any and all forms of cheating, I ask that debaters remain vigilant for it as well. Also, and I can’t believe I need to write this, please don’t engage in acts of self-harm to win my ballot (you know who you are). Instead, please demonstrate mastery of persuasion, word economy, and 2nr/2ar prescience – teams that reverse-engineer strategies and execute them methodically speech-by-speech impress me the most – a searing cross-ex is, of course, welcome – entertaining and innovative teams will be rewarded with speaker points.

A few final notes: not a huge fan of process counterplans (but I’ll still vote for them), conditionality is pretty good (as is neg fiat), link uniqueness wins k rounds, and maybe, just maybe, go for presumption.

Email: sarah.wingo@gmail.com Please include me on the email chain.

TL;DR: Choose your battles for the second rebuttals, don't just tell that you're winning everything. Tell me why the impacts that you're winning are more important than the impacts that they're winning. If going for theory args, you should spend at least 4 minutes on it. I flow by ear, not by speech doc so it behooves you to be clear.

General: I expect every debater to flow and to be nice to both opponents and partner. Cross-examinations should be civil and at a conversational volume.

I value clarity over speed and have a tendency not to evaluate arguments that are not sign posted. The clearest speaker will receive the highest speaker points, and I will let you know if you’re not being clear. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments, and they probably won’t factor highly in my decision. I don’t care if you sent me the whole speech doc and said it word for word. Debate is a competition of communication and reasoning, you need to be clear. That is usually at the expense of speed, which means you also need to manage your speech time effectively.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Time and CX: You should keep track of your own prep, speech, and CX times, as well as your opponents', if you deem it necessary. CX is not a shouting match. It’s not a game of interruption

a. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want high speaker points.

b. Aim to ask the question that the debater couldn't answer if that person had the whole 3 minutes.

c. I absolutely loathe when questions are basically “you said this but what about our card that says the opposite?” That’s setting up the debater to then spend 3 minutes telling me why I should prefer their evidence.

d. As the questioner, do NOT let them run away with your time. Ideally they won't because you're not asking questions like the one above. The way to shut them up is saying, “ok that’s fine. Moving on, [separate question]?”

DA/CP: No preferences/opinions

K Aff: I think affirmative teams should have a plan text. On the aff you must win a reason why FW is violent/bad and a reason why this round in particular is key. The reason why either side tends to lose is because they don't interact with the other sides' arguments: that means that k teams should adapt their blocks to answer the specific way the neg team is going for framework and neg teams should engage with the substance of the aff.

Ks on the Neg: Links should be specific to the aff. Even if your evidence is generic, good analysis and spin can still win you the round. If your links are just state bad or based on fiat, I will probably vote aff. SLOW DOWN ON THE K. Assume your judge hasn’t ever heard the K before and is trying to understand the reasoning that it indicts. I am especially inclined to vote for an identified and impacted performative contradiction.

Topicality: I don’t particularly enjoy T debates, but I will vote on them. I generally think that if the neg has specific blocks to answer the case, it’s probably topical. I’d prefer a debate on limits and grounds rather than “abuse” and “fairness.” I’d like to hear a debate on the literature and competing interpretations.

Other Theory (condo, alt vagueness, etc.): I generally dislike theory arguments. Either go for them (whole 2NR/2AR) or just don’t read them. That being said, I will hear them and vote them up if explained and impacted. If you can explain why something such an issue, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to reject the argument not the team. You must tell me how I should evaluate the debate, meaning in which order I should evaluate theory and policy. I am not inclined to judge kick an argument unless the 2R tells me to (and poor answers).

******Updated 11/14/2020

I’m a freshman at Georgia Tech this year and I debated at Westminster for 5 years. I was a 2A my entire debate career.

Quick things:

1.     Clarity over speed. I’ll call clear the first couple of times but I might give up after a while. I’ll try my best to follow what you’re saying but if I don’t flow an argument because I didn’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

2.     Be respectful, courteous, and nice!!! If you’re mean or offensive, I will dock speaker points.

3.     I am not very familiar with high theory K literature, so the more explanation you do the better.

4.     I think the aff should defend a topical action by the USFG. I’m probably not the best judge for you if you don’t read a plan.

5.     Evidence is really important. The more you can read the opponent’s evidence and point out why their argument is wrong/….

See Colesy Cotter’s judging philosophy. I agree with her on pretty much everything.

If you have any questions, email me at katie.j.zhu@gmail.com!