Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.

CX TEAMS: START THE EMAIL CHAIN AS SOON AS ALL DEBATERS ARE IN THE ROOM.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org

high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually in someone's tab. as such, i'm not keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.

--

hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep, but do not abuse this.

on flowing:

I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.

you have GOT to put inflections, emphasis etc in your speeches otherwise i WILL NOT be able to hear, understand, and flow you. if you pick up nothing else from this paradigm, absorb this and invest in practices that will allow you to be a clear and impactful reader.

you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.

i flow args not authors most of the time. EXTEND YOUR ARGS. TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE REPLYING TO. "judge, extend our brooks '03" tells me nothing. where am i putting that? what is it answering? how is it relevant? if i have to answer those questions myself, there's an issue. you want me to do as little intervention in the back as possible-- tell me exactly where you want something flowed, that way at the end of the round we can be assured that my decision is based off of what you all debated for me, not my own opinions or biases.

POLICY basics:

1. I DO NOT FLOW FROM SPEECH DOCS. i flow what i hear, which means speak up, speak clearly, and if you're tempted to double breathe, don't. it's distracting and doesn't actually help you debate better or faster. if you go silent while you spread, don't. i have tinnitus in BOTH ears, i will stop flowing if you become unintelligible. you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.
2. do not read theory at me. your speaks will reflect you reading theory at me poorly
3. keep your flows organized-- the easiest way to do that is by sign posting ("next", "and", "now onto" are perfect phrases for keeping the pace of a speech while still allowing the judge time to switch flows).
4. for neg teams in particular: do not prioritize reading a thousand args in the 1NC over 1-2 actual strategies. i will not reward you for wasting aff and MY time. do not play with me on this.
5. Do Not Read Theory At Me.
6. If you're nonblack and running Black args, 1) your reasoning had better be solid 2) i'm giving 24s and below to whoever does it poorly. using antiblackness, afropess and other Black args as "gotchas!" against teams in rounds IS in itself antiblack, and i'm not going to listen to the commodification of Blackness for a ballot. if your strategy needs to change because of this, you also need to be evaluating why you had those args in your arsenal in the first place.

tldr:
- read clearly and loudly, or i will not flow your speech. don't read theory at me. don't read bad Ks at me. your speaks will reflect you reading things poorly at me. don't read Black args if you're not Black, as 'gotchas' against your opponents; i will break tabroom giving you the lowest possible speaks.

--

LD BASICS:
if you want to have an in depth, hardcore theory or k debate, i am not the judge for you. don't do it to yourself or to me. generally i'll evaluate most arguments fairly; if a team can explain and convince me to vote for them, and the flow matches, that's all i really need to give a ballot. that being said, i don't regularly judge LD so my ear is NOT trained to y'all's jargon and whatnot. in case you didn't read above, i have tinnitus in both ears and need you to SLOW DOWN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPEECH. enunciate anything of importance; no, that doesn't mean your whole speech lmao (unless you're going for high speaks, bc yes i will award higher speaks to whoever enunciates and emphasizes arguments in their speeches).

T: i don't like T debates, but i'll give them a fair evaluation!
larp v larp: sure, go for it
larp v k: i'll be honest, i'll probably lean larp here if the k team doesn't properly explain or defend themselves
k v k: please god do not do this to us. i mean it. it will be an unpleasant round for everyone involved.
disclosure: fairness is an impact but don't take this to an extreme.
no RVIs: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
friv. theory: if it's truly frivolous, no i'm not voting on it. i'll evaluate every argument given in the debate, but it NEEDS to have a basis in truth, or be proven not an absolute waste of debate time.

Jake Brugger, debated policy with C.K. Mcclatchy High school 2012 - 2014. Currently a UC Berkeley sophmore.

I am a 2nd year university student who debated policy for two years in high school. It's been a long time since I was a part of the community, but I live with debaters so needless to say I've kept up with it a little. That being said, as long as I have some access to evidence, read at a speed at which you are clear and intelligible. Read your tags and authors at a slower pace and with a sufficiently different inflection.

At the top level, I will vote on the argument that has been developed, defended, and weighted more effectively than opposing arguments. I will not vote on anything on my own accord, you have to package arguments (especially in rebuttals) in a way that gives me a clear path to voting for you. I will give the most weight to extended/ adequately defended arguments. Dropping arguments is a huge problem, and I will weight them greatly if extended by your opponents, but they do not mean an automatic win/loss. Give me a compelling, sound, and clear reason as to why you win the ballot, and make sure to tell that story at the end of the debate. If I don't feel I have this story before me when I make my decision, I cant be blamed for being unpredictable.

As far as the policy realm is concerned, the above applies. Give me the story of your disadvantage: why it is unique, how it is relevant to your opponents argument, and why it matters in the world. Negate these facets of your opponents' arguments. Counter plans must be competitive, ie they must functionally compete, provide a net benefit, or both. Respond to the perm if necessary, these can disable your argument very quickly (this goes for K's as well). That being said, saying 7 unique perms in a row without explaining them will not do you much good. Your argument must imply that your opponents are wrong about their advocacy and that it would be a net harm for the world or some subset of it. The opposite is true for the Affirmative; tell the story as to why your advocacy is sound and a net good. Fiat is not unlimited, explain what your mechanism is and why it is reasonable within the context of the resolution.

Use topicality and other framework arguments to your advantage, but they must also have a link/impact story. Part of debate is elaborating on what the activity itself is, I cannot wholly decide this for you. They, like everything, are not automatically winning arguments, and must be packaged in a clear way in order to win.

I will vote on nearly anything as long as you give me a compelling reason to do so, including the kritik. I read the Cap K and the like in high school, so I am somewhat familiar with simpler K's; not so for more complex and heavier Kritiks. I have had little to no interaction with race debate (ie Wilderson and the like), but I am completely comfortable voting on it if you give compelling reasons. If you don't have a plan, you need to give me a clear reason why, one that matters. Like I said, I don't have a lot of experience with these arguments (and with advanced policy in general), so don't take anything for granted and don't make the assumption that I'm on the same page from the get go. In general, these types of arguments as well as the more complex kritiks will be hard for me to vote on, but not impossible, due to my unfamiliarity. However, don't hesitate to be creative. Prove your framework if you feel it differs from your opponents; this is a necessity. Debate is about hypothetical scenarios, but if you can prove impacts that are near and present, I will weigh and vote on them.

Be effective but respectful in cross examination. If I think you are sufficiently constraining your opponents ability to speak, I will stop paying attention and your speaks will be docked. I will stop a round in the event I feel a debater is being physically harmed or sufficiently threatened, but I highly doubt it will come to that. As far as ethical violations go, they must be malicious and intentional to be punishable. Understandable mistakes are not violations. If you suspect your opponent of intentionally fabricating or changing their evidence, I advise you to record the round, and speak to me after the debate but before I have made my decision. I will record speeches if I suspect a violation as well. If you are proved to have committed a violation, you will receive zero speaks and lose. Speech times are a rule. Other than that, the game is up to you and your opponents.

Hi all. Thanks for reading my paradigm. I started and coached the Speech and Debate team at Denver School of the Arts (Denver Public Schools) from 2007 to 2020 and have been judging mostly policy debate since 1984. I would like to think I have embraced the authenticity of all debate and endorse the student driven evolution of the events.

For 2023 Nationals, I've been hired to judge World Schools Debate. I have watched two practice rounds and viewed two national finals online. I like this event and want to judge it fairly in a way that supports debaters. That said, I still plan to flow heavily because it is what I know. My CX/LD paradigm information is below. I realize WS does not use the same terms, but it seems that those terms have been replaced with things that mean basically the same thing such as substantives, layers, models and burdens. I appreciate clear burdens (which I understand as framework) and models (which I understand as plans or criterions). If you bring these up, please thread them throughout the round and signpost when you are referencing them. Anything that tells me how you want me to evaluate the round is super helpful. Even though this type of debate seems less heavy on evidence and sources, I still need warrants. It is very hard for me to vote on arguments that fail to really go past the claim level. I appreciate a good, clean performance. I don't think anything is ever lost in showing respect for your opponents. You all deserve that from me and from each other.

I appreciate any high school student who is taking their weekends to engage in discourse so before the round begins you have my utmost respect.

Topicality: Feel free to run this though I rarely vote on it unless I think a particular aff is abusive in its treatment of the topic. Even if your case is more narrative in nature, the narrative should in some way acknowledge the topic.

If you run a narrative or Kritik, run it as a one off (perhaps with brief topicality but nothing else) and give me a lot of specificity. Tell me how your position functions, link it to the aff or neg and the alt needs to be clear and well thought out-not just a do nothing or reject all instances.

I'll listen to anything within reason. I also enjoy straight up policy rounds. When debaters execute well, I've found myself voting for arguments and positions I never thought I could consider. That means I'm here to listen to you and will try to set my own political biases aside as long as your advocacy is not lacking in humanity.

Debate is ultimately a performance to me, so make sure that your arguments and ethos are in harmony-please don't run polar opposite positions on neg. I'm not a fan of disembodied arguments; I think you should believe what you argue.

Clear speed is OK, but kind of silly. If you are going to make a complex argument to me, why would you self undermine it by making it so quickly it can't be processed by someone with four college degrees? Give me words and I'll flow everything the best I can. No, I won't yell clear, but your partner can.

Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round.

4 years of IE's & 1 year of Policy Debate for Bentonville High School (AR) w/ NSDA Premier Distinction

Critical Studies major @ USC School of Cinematic Arts

djdeluca@usc.edu

Case - Undervalued! I *love* a good case debate.

DA/CP - Nothing too unusual here. Obviously specific links will trump generic ones for both. Not huge on CP debate to be honest though, I don't especially enjoy judging them and will not appreciate if they are used as a Neg timesuck.

T - Always a voting issue. Standards debates are most important to me here.

K - I will be familiar with most Kritiks but need you to really provide me with nuanced definitions and a specific alternative. You should have a clear grasp on and have read the literature of whatever K you are running. The Alt should significantly interplay with the Aff and its impacts, and I should know why a perm is not viable. Wouldn't recommend getting lost in the FW/Theory debate unless you legitimately feel it's key.

ETC - Fine w/ performance and have a general love of good speaking skills + creative flourishes. Generally, try to avoid debates that don't actually engage with the resolution or the real world; please, no jargon-ridden nonsense! Absolute zero tolerance for any racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism etc. in the rounds, too.

Feel free to e-mail me!

I am a first year parent judge but try not to hold that against me. I have made it a priority to learn as much as I can about the rules, procedures and techniques of policy debate and I attend lecture meetings when I can so that I get a better understanding of what policy debate should look like. Please add me to email chains using the email listed.

larina.falcona@gmail.com

Homewood Flossmoor High School 2011-2015

Pomona College 2015-2019 (not debating)

Meta Level

The more work you do, the happier you will be with my decision. By this I don’t just mean that I reward smart strategies, research, etc. (I do), but rather that the better you explain and unpack an argument and tell me how to evaluate it, the less likely my own biases and preferences will affect the decision. With this in mind, there are a couple takeaways

-          Framing is important. At a certain point, this seems redundant to say (obviously impact calc is important), but all too often debaters fail to “tie up” the debate in a way that is easy to evaluate. What impacts matter? What arguments should I look to first? How should I think about making decisions? Leaving these calls up to my gut may not work out well for you. Do not assume that I will put together the pieces of your argument in the way that is most favorable to you, or the way that you they should be viewed. Your best bet is to do this for me. As a general rule of thumb, your likelihood of picking up my ballot is directly proportional to the number of “even if” statements you make.

-          truth and tech are both important and the divisions between them are far more arbitrary and vacuous than it is usually given credit for. That being said, it is up to you to give me a metric for evaluating what claims are true. What types of evidence should I look to? Should I view that evidence through a certain lens? How should I treat dropped/under covered arguments? Obviously I have some personal proclivities that may be harder to overcome than others

o   I will always tend to evaluate dropped arguments far less than extended arguments. This does not mean that dropped arguments are automatically “true” or that truth claims made earlier in the debate are suddenly gone (that may well require more work on my part), but it does mean that I am less likely to give these arguments weight.

o   Although they can be important parts of a speech, I am not inclined to give as much weight to solipsistic narratives as evidence. This is not a hard or fast preference, and some smart framing arguments about the way I should evaluate narratives will go a long way, but do not assume I will immediately evaluate a narrative as evidence in its own right sans an evidenced claim that I should evaluate them this way.

o   Make smart analytic arguments, these can often be better than reading yet another terrible uniqueness card on the politics disad. The more I see you thinking for yourself and making creative and smart arguments in a debate, the better speaks you will get.

I appreciate creative and innovative strategies, maybe more than others. If you want to bust out that weird impact turn or super cheating counterplan or sweet ass new K, you should do that. You will always be better at doing what you do best. Please don’t feel deterred from reading a strategy in front of me because the community has generally frowned on it (spark, death good, etc.), I’m down to hear things outside of the norm. That being said, I included a few notes about how I feel/debated like in high school, you can take these preferences however you want, they are subject to change within a round.

As a caveat, Debate should be a space where everyone feels welcome. Please do not read racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist/ or otherwise offensive arguments in front of me.

Please add me on the email chain: Jacob.a.fontana@gmail.com.

Framework

I debated both sides of this extensively in high school. I will not “penalize” you for reading framework; I think it is a smart and strategic argument. Similarly, do not assume that because you read framework you have my ballot, I am very middle of the road on these issues. You should treat this as any other K/CP strategy you have read. Too often teams miss nuance in these debates and read a bunch of state good/bad evidence while neglecting the smaller moving pieces, I tend to think those are important, and the more you address the internal link level of the debate, the better off you will be.

T

Affirmatives should find ways to leverage offense against the negatives interpretation. Playing some light defense and reading some reasonability blacks is not going to win you my ballot. I generally tend to default to competing interpretations. Furthermore, teams need to treat this debate more like disad, you should do impact calc, read impact, link, or internal link turns, explain why your interp solves a portion of their offense, etc. I greatly enjoy smart T debates and will reward you handsomely in speaker points if you execute it well.

Disads

Absolute defense (or defense to the point where I should cease to evaluate the disad outside of the noise of status quo) is a thing and far too few debaters go for. 90 percent of disads are absolute garbage and you shouldn’t be afraid to point that out. More broadly, Offense defense tends to be a heavily neg biased model of debate and contributes to a lot (in my eyes) to the denigration of the activity towards the most reality-divorced hyperbolic impact claims, and I will not default to it. Obviously this is subject to change in a given round, but you should be conscious of the weight I tend to give to defensive arguments. In general, I think link controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can easily be persuaded otherwise

Please, if you have it, read something different than politics. I don’t hate the politics disad, but it is an often overused strategy and I will reward your innovation with speaker points

Counterplans

Any argument is legitimate until it is not, don’t hesitate to read your cheating counterplans in front of me, but be ready to defend them. Theory debates are good and valuable, but I do not want to listen to you read your blocks at 400 words a minute. Slow down, make smart arguments, and go for what you’re ahead on. Less is often more in these situations. I actually very much enjoy good theory debates and find them quite interesting. You should treat these like any other type of debate, you should do impact calc, flesh out internal links, etc.

Kritiks

I have a reasonable familiarity with most mainstream critiques and greatly enjoy these debates. In high school, I would most often read the security or the cap K, but this should not be interpreted as an exclusionary list. You do you and I’ll likely jive with it. I will reward innovation, reading a tailored critique is far more interesting to me than rereading the same Spanos block your team has had for the last 8 years. The one caveat here is that my familiarity with certain “high theory” authors (Bataille, Deleuze, etc.) is rather passing. I am more than certainly open to hearing these arguments and don’t have any prejudices against them (I debated on the same team as Carter Levinson for 3 years), but this does mean that you may need to take extra time to unpack arguments and contextualize them in terms of the debate.

Topic Notes

I have not worked on the China Topic, for you this means you probably want to slow down on, and possibly explain, acronyms the first couple times.

Ethics violations

Ethic violations are deliberate, not accidental. Missing a few words or accidentally skipping a line isn’t a big deal, but repeatedly doing that or doing it in a way that is clearly intentional is. If you believe that someone has committed an ethics violation, please start recording the round, I also reserve the right to do this. If I think you are clipping, I may start a recording of my own, I will also try read along in the speech docs whenever possible. If I do determine you’ve committed a violation, you will lose the debate and receive 0 speaks, I will also speak to your coaches. Clipping is a serious offense and I will treat it with the attention it deserves.

1. Facts more powerful than hypothesis.

2. Stay relevant. If advocating, state relevancy.

3. Try not to use debate jargon. Debate is not my major.

4. Be courteous. No personal attack.

5. Don't read too fast. Or pass the cards beforehand.

Include me on your email chain: gurrola.victoria@gmail.com

Background:

I competed in policy debate for Claremont High School from 2006-2010. I enjoyed running K's. I was a volunteer mentor coach and judge for the Bay Area Urban Debate League from 2011-2015. I have a masters in Public Policy from Mills College. I taught first grade for the last three years in Oakland Unified. I've only judged at a few tournaments over the last few years as teaching took up most of my time.

I am fine with speed. However, my ear is not as trained as it used to be. Please slow down for taglines and theory arguments. If I miss something because you were going to fast on a bullet point, it can hurt you. Argument quality over quantity is always better.

I am open to hearing all kinds of debate. Just as happy hearing a k debate as I am a cp/da debate. I do believe that the aff has an obligation to affirm the resolution. I don't think that K affs need to have a plan, but you need to have some connection to the topic. Tell me how the debate should be framed. If you're going to run a K I need to have a clear understanding of how it specifically links to the aff. I am less likely to vote for a generic K with a broad link.

PLEASE do not assume that I have read/am an expert on any of your K arguments. YOU have the obligation of explaining your arguments. If I don't understand your argument then I can't vote for it. I have no issue with voting you down on something that you didn't clearly explain to me. For K debates I've found myself much more compelled in debates where I am told the roll of the ballot/judge. I don't believe that debate exists in a vacuum.

Don't be rude or condescending to your partner, opponents, or me.

Update for Harvard 2021

General background: I debated for 4 years at Paideia, and 4 years at UChicago. I have coached policy debate for 4 years, Parliamentary debate for 2, and have been fairly involved in the debate circuit more broadly for the last 8 years. I do not know the exact argument by argument minutia of the topics but I will give a quick rundown on argument types and how I view debate.

Policy Paradigm:

First, debate is a game. That does not mean I will vote neg on T, it just means that some of the paradigms of the game inform how I view the activity. I have a ton of experience with K arguments and love that debate. If you demonstrate why your version of the game is important I will evaluate it against what the neg says.

Stock arguments: I love the politics disad, almost all types of policy K's (think security, anthro etc.) I am fine with most T arguments but my bar for voting on T is probably high. You have to demonstrate why the aff is abusive, not necessarily whether it is the most predictable, and giving specific examples is more important than doing hand wavy topical version of the aff stuff.

Framework: see "debate is probably a game" stuff.

Counterplan competition: please prove the abuse to me.

"I am a K debater": Love to hear it, I will vote for you if your arguments are engaging, have an impact, and have some weak ability to either solve for that impact or explain why solvency is not important. I will still evaluate your arguments against the neg though, and believe that T functions not only as a referendum on the framework of the debate, but on the arguments of the neg.

PF Paradigm:

Honestly I don't have a ton of experience in PF but please just remember fundamental claim, warrant implication and you will be fine with me. I do like strong evidence!

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

I competed in International Extemp in High School, and was a state finalist for the state of Ohio. I have competed in British Parliamentary Debate for the Debate Society of Berkeley for the past four years.

I prefer that debaters engage in the resolution and avoid theoretical or kritical arguments.

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

Debated for 4 years at St. Francis High School

Add me to the email chain: ali@g.hmc.edu

The basics: Assume I don't know the topic, explain your arguments, engage with your opponents, and don't be hateful. Brownie points (speaker points) for bringing me chocolate or saying something really snarky in cross ex that I can laugh about with my squad, e.g. "The oceans are vast. Didn't you know that?"

Oft-heard questions:

-Debate jargon is fine, but jargon is not a replacement for warrants and analysis.

-If you read a K or K aff, assume I am not familiar with the literature.

-I don't know most of the topic-specific acronyms.

-Tag team is fine.

Other details:

I debated on the national circuit in high school, but I have not been debating in college. Give me time to acclimate to your voice, pen time between flows is also absolutely necessary. If you're blippy, I'll probably only be able to flow about half of it.

I debated mostly policy on both aff and neg, with most of the Ks that I read being generics like cap and security and a few identity arguments. As a result, if you run a K, please please explain everything and contextualize it to your opponent's arguments. If I can't follow the argument due to jargon or an assumed understanding of some paper that some philosopher wrote, then I can't vote for it.

In terms of politeness and civility, there's a distinction between emotion imbued in an argument and plain ol' meanness. Please, none of the latter. Speaker points will drop quickly if I sense any of that.

I judged one round where disclosure theory was involved and I hope to never do so again. It was miserable for everyone. Therefore, show me that cites/opensource documents from the current round are on your wiki, and your speaker points will get a +0.2 boost.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or email me! I will leave my flows up for grabs at the end of the round.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

History/Background: Current competitor for UC Berkeley, 2 years overall Parli experience. I have pretty extensive experience judging LD, Pofo, IPDA, etc so I can hang with any format, but since my background is primarily Parli, that's what this paradigm is focused on. If I'm judging you in a different event, please don't hesitate to ask for my opinions on anything in regards to how you debate.

Paradigm Proper: Anybody who says that they're tabula rasa in their paradigm is lying, but I will try to remain as close to a blank slate as possible while watching you debate. I'm adaptable to most any type of argument, so don't hold back. Below is a set of preferences through which I generally evaluate debate, but if you make arguments in the round that are sufficiently convincing, I am more than happy to listen and change my stance. Any other questions can and should be directed to me at the start of the round. Here goes:

Case debate: I love a good case debate, the more detailed the better. Clear stories and strong links with terminalized impacts will make my day. Impact weighing is godsend in a messy round and the more clash the better. Narrow collapses and straightforward voters will make my life so much easier and me so much happier to vote for you. Counterplans are cool and I'll vote on any types (Including Delay, PICs, and any other types) but I'll also vote on CP theory if your CP is abusive.

Theory: I'm somewhat of a theory hack so please don't hand-wave it away in front of me. Theory is super dope and I'm always down to vote on it if someone makes it a voting issue. Interps, Counter-interps, standards, and counter-standards are critical so please use them to the best of your ability! Like any other form of debate, a messy theory debate makes me a sad judge. I don't like RVIs and you'll be fighting an uphill battle to get me to vote on one. I default to competing interpretations which IN MY MIND is weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by standards vs counter-standards. If you think it's something different, tell me in your speech.

Kritikal Debate: Ks are cool, but I'm of the opinion that Ks might be cheating and they certainly are run too much on my circuit. Good K debate is an art but bad K debate is a dumpster fire. I haven't read the litbase and you probably haven't either. Make it understandable to me and you'll have a much easier time getting my ballot. I don't care how "rhizomatic" you think you are, if you're opponets are confused, I probably am too. I will vote for your Foucault-Deleuze-biopower-warmachine-psot-structuralist mumbo jumbo if it's horribly mishandled by your opponents, but I won't be happy about it if I can't understand it by the end of the round. I probably sound very anti-K, but really I'm totally down for them, just try to make them comprehensible. Same thing applies to Aff Ks, but they're probably even more cheater-y than normal Ks so I'm cool with em but framwork T is totally legit and I will vote on it.

Other general things:

Conditionality: Condo is dope but I'll vote on Condo Bad without too much pressure if it's well articulated! I try to be tab when evaluating the position, so know your Condo Good/Bad and I'll go either way!

Speed: I can keep up, but if you want hyper-specific arguments flowed exactly, I'd recommend slowing down a bit. Also, don't be a jerk, if your opponents call slow, slow down. Debate isn't fun if someone can't engage because you spread them out.

Speaker points: Speaker points are really arbitrary but I assign based on who I thought the best debater in the round, so a basic round will look like 1st Speaker gets between 30-28 points, next gets .1 lower, et cetera. Unless you do something really nasty or messed up in round, you shouldn't expect to get any less than 27 speaker points.

Partner Communication: Communicate as much as you want/need to. Don't be overly loud during your opponent's speeches and I'll only flow the designated speaker's args. I might lower speaker points if one partner is completely parroting the other, but I have a pretty high threshold for that.

(I think the idea that a TEAM BASED ACTIVITY should limit partner communication is absurd but far too prevalent on the pre-Colleigate level and I will happily debate anyone on this topic.)

Once again, if you have any questions about this, let me know before the round and I will be glad to help clarify anything you need me to!

Good luck and have fun!

[Updated paradigm for Berkeley 2020 below]

New paradigm given my new circumstances. After 11 years coaching and debating at the high school and NDT-CEDA levels, I'm no longer actively coaching or competing in policy. I’m an experienced judge and have competed and coached at a very wide range of levels over the years, including the NDT and TOC, but I have pretty much tuned out debate since the end of last season. I'm looking forward to hearing my first debates on this year's topic as international topics were some of my favorites, but you should know that Berkeley will be my first tournament judging this topic. I am currently in my second and final year of a masters program in public policy here at UC Berkeley.

I’d like to be on the email chain if applicable: Menzies.benjamin530@gmail.com. If using flash drives or paper, I’ll ask for cards at the end of the round.

I debated at Nevada Union (2007-2010) and Whitman College (2010-2014), then coached at Whitman (2014-15) and C.K. McClatchy (2015-18). I coached NDT and TOC qualifying teams and attended the NDT myself (as well as participating in some pretty locally-focused lay debate and working at a very regionally-focused debate camp in the northwest – so from the most fast and technical kind of debate to the opposite of that).

Stylistically, I believe debate is up to the debaters and will judge whatever kind of debate you want me to. As both a coach and a competitor, I’ve been all over the framework spectrum and find that I am pretty flexible when it comes to issues of engaging the resolution, alternative approaches to impact debates, or whether debate is a good vehicle for various kinds of political commitments. Just do whatever you do as well as you can, and I promise I will give you the fairest opportunity possible to win my ballot. Absent some other story about how I should decide my ballot, I’m generally just going to weigh the benefits and costs of voting affirmative versus negative, as articulated to me in the last rebuttals. I’m pretty partial to offense-defense analysis since it makes sense to me and is what I was mainly trained in, but I’ve voted for plenty of other methods of weighing arguments on the flow.

Having spent most of my competitive career working on the affirmative side of the resolution, I find that I am generally sympathetic to many aff claims about the problems with some generic strategies that have cropped up over the years. In particular, I just don’t like process counterplans that are lazily executed as a way to steal the whole aff. But I have voted for plenty over the years, and I generally think the best answers to bad arguments are good analytical arguments or clever applications of thin evidence (not theoretical challenges). I have also cut a lot of politics/elections cards over the years, although I feel like these arguments are somewhat on the decline these days. I’m totally fine with critical arguments as well, although I will admit I have never been a huge fan of the psychoanalytic variety of Ks (but, again, have voted for them). I’m also now a graduate student in public policy and have worked on policy the past few years at the state level, so I’m naturally pretty interested in the “real” policy analysis that sometimes doesn’t show up in policy debate (but can be quite effective – it mostly takes place on the case!).

I don’t really have any strong opinions about conditionality and don’t really find the number of off-case positions read by the negative to be a salient point in many of those debates (i.e. “they read six off case positions, so we couldn’t answer their arguments” doesn’t really read to me as a complete argument or reason to vote affirmative).

I always really enjoyed cross examination and find it sometimes weighs pretty heavily in my speaker point allocation. It is some of your most precious time in the debate and can often prove decisive, so I recommend preparing for it like it is a speech and trying to make the most of yours. Also it’s sometimes not particularly relevant to the question of who won the debate, I do like to see quality evidence read. Most debate evidence is really not very good, so it’s always nice to see evidence of good research and preparation. And it’s easier to weigh persuasively than bad evidence!

Happy to answer any other questions you have. Remember that this activity is intended to be fun and educational, so do your best to create an inclusive community conducive to making that available for all people. In a communicative activity, rhetoric is certainly material, and you should pay attention to making yours constructive, thoughtful, and non-exclusionary toward groups underrepresented in debate.

I've been debating, coaching, and judging for a very long time. Most of your coaches would know me as "Hath". I debated for Wichita State Univeristy and qualified for the NDT and debated in elims at CEDA Nats and many national tournaments. I have coached college students at four year universities and community colleges. I have coached Novice teams to the College Novice National Championship Final Round a couple times. I have coached high school students and helped at Urban debate leagues. What I am trying to say is that I have been exposed to a lot of different types and styles of debate. I have judged College, High School national circuit debates as well as local league debates. This is your activity and I am willing to come in and listen to the activity you have decided to present to me. Now with that said I am very open to listening to any and all types of debates I of course have my preferences and you will have to be willing to overcome some initial distaste at first.

1. Kritik-, I didn't debate them. In fact I did everything possible to make sure we beat them. I will listen to them by all means and have voted on them several times. Just because I didn't like them and you do doesn't mean you should be scared to run them in front of me.

2. I like strategic debate, show me how things play out and how the other teams responses play into your game. Make sure you tell me what my voting for you means. What happens if I actually vote for your impact calculus. I like it.

3. I was kind of a jerky when I was a debater. I have kids now (one of which is now a college debater) and have grown up a little bit. Just don't be rude and condescending to the other team.

4. Still not a fan of critical or performative affirmatives. Your aff should have a plan and you should advocate that plan in the round in my opinion.

For all the types of debate I judge I keep a pretty tight clock. You should do your prep and getting stuff during prep. You should have minimal unaccounted time. I am running a clock and my clock is the time of the round.

Finally just have fun, this is really just a game and games are supposed to be fun.

I am an old school policy debater.  The kind that used tape, scissors and highlighters to cut evidence.  I debated for Jeff Jarman at Wichita State University, went to the NDT twice and broke at CEDA Nationals at some point.  I debated with Jeremy Hathaway who I met at the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont, debate nerds.  I coached at Chico State for two years when I was in grad school.  I am from Sacramento, California and debated in high school for 4 years for Kennedy High School.  I am currently a healthcare attorney and I have a daughter who is debating for West Campus High School, Hi Abby!

I don't judge a ton of debates every year.  I think I am a decent judge because I try really hard.  I was a 1A and 2N.  I expect a clean flow and lots of sign posting.  I dont like prep time stealing, be considerate of when you are prepping.  I am probably started running your clock already.  I flow on paper with two different colored pens, I am that old.  I try to keep up with what you are saying when you speak fast, thats fine with me.  I will tell you when to slow down or if I cant understand you, but I am not your mom, you need to listen and adapt.  I will make faces and give you some signs that I understand or I am listening or I have no idea where you are on the flow.  When I put my hands up like, where are you, i really mean, where are you, and at some point i will just start flowing on a new piece of paper, so i have your arguments, but that means that they are not getting applied correctly, and that is your fault, so if you dont like the decision that is your bad.

I like impact calculations.  I like topicality.  I like rules, I try and follow them in life and i think you should too.  I am one of the most liberal people you will ever meet, although I dont think you would ever know it.  I dont let that interfere with my judging but c'mon how can that not play into your decision calculus, its like saying that we are all colorblind, ridiculous.  I call it like i see it.  I dont understand framework arguments, but I am open to hearing them, if you tell me what to do with my ballot, I will do it.  I will entertain arguments that my ballot means something outside of the round, but honestly after seeing thousands of debates I understand that it is the totality of the experience and not the individual round that really matters.  I will never say that I wont listen to an argument, I will listen to anything that you have to share and you have researched.  And I will vote for things that I dont agree with because that is how the game is played.

I have been participating in debate for over 25 years and that gives me some perspective.  I love this activity, I love what it teaches and the hope that it inspires.  I have met my best friends in this activity and people who i think have changed the world for the better.  I believe in the goodness of people within this activity and I hope that you do to.  Treat each other kindly and dont be a jerk.  Life is a series of awkward moments strung together by eating and sleeping, embrace it, admit when you are wrong, and figure out how to get yourself out a jam in a debate round, you cant win everything, pick and choose what you can win and have the tenacity to go for it.  Good luck and dont be afraid to ask me any questions.  

Judging Background: I competed at both the community college debate level and the 4-year university level and am a current competitor for UC Berkeley. I have 2 years of Parli experience as well as extensive high school judging experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy. My paradigm will mainly be related to parli, but I have many thoughts on other events, so I’d be happy to discuss them prior to the round. I will always make time for competitor questions.

The TL;DR of my paradigm is that I will vote for just about anything, but I like case a lot, theory a little less, and Ks at the bottom of my debate arg hierarchy. I try to be tabula rasa so I will nevertheless do my best to intervene as little as possible, but I recommend the following notes as things to keep in mind when you debate in front of me!

Case debate: Smart (topical) approaches to rounds are always appreciated! Make your case clear and signpost properly or else you will lose me on the flow. Make your links strong and have well-developed impact stories, and make sure to collapse properly and weigh your arguments well. I like ads, disads, and counterplans, so feel free to run it all! I will vote for an abusive counterplan, but I will also vote on well-articulated CP theory (PICs bad, Delay bad).

Theory: I also enjoy theory and am def willing to vote on most theory shells. Make sure you’ve got your interps, standards, counter-interps, and counter-standards or it’s going to be a difficult time and I will be sad. If debaters don’t articulate a framework to evaluate the theory through, I will default to competing interpretations. To me, this is literally weighing the interp vs the counter-interp by using the standards and counter-standards as the uniqueness. I don’t like RVIs because I think theory is an important check so if you’re going for one, you should have a good reason.

Kritiques: I’m down for the K but it’s not my favorite thing to judge. I will definitely vote for them if you win the flow, but please make sure you make all components of it clear! If the argument isn’t made clear, I will be hesitant to vote on it. This is a particular problem with post-structuralist arguments that rely on a lot of lit that I most certainly have not read, so I can’t backfill anything for you and will avoid doing so no matter what you read. If your opponents are lost, chances are that I am as well. Make your links rock-solid and your alt solvency crystal-clear and that will be your route to the ballot.

K Affs: Most of the above applies here, but since I believe that debate has inherent value in at least discussing the topic in a substantial way so if you run one, please PLEASE contextualize it to the resolution and explain why you couldn’t defend a topical policy action. Framework-T is a great out for any negative strat against an aff-k.

Here are some other general thoughts I have on parli:

Conditionality: I believe that Condo is not a very good thing, and while I will not vote you down for being condo, I may be predisposed to lean towards a decent Condo Bad shell.

Speed: I can largely keep up, but don’t abuse your ability to spread! Make sure that the round is inclusive to everyone involved or debate is no fun. If you are incomprehensible, I will not hesitate to call “clear” or “slow” and I expect you to afford your opponents that same respect. If I miss something on the flow, it’s probably your fault.

Partner Communication: Since Parli is a team game, I expect communication to happen and I encourage it, as long as you are respectful while your opponents are speaking! I will also only flow what the current speaker says, so be aware of that when feeding arguments.

Speaker Points: I’m a point fairy! The top speaker will get 30, followed by 29.5, 29, 28.5. If I happen to give out something lower, I should have a justification and some constructive criticism on my ballot for you.

IVI's and RVI's: I have a high threshold for both IVI's and RVI's. If they are unresponded to, however, I will be forced to evaluate them.

P.S. I will be a very happy judge if you have clever taglines on your DA’s and AD’s :’)

I am a parent judge and this is my third year around a policy team. I can handle some speed, but please don't sacrifice clarity. During rounds I will flow, including off-case arguments. My grasp of debate jargon varies, so don't rely on it too heavily. 

I don't have any strong opinions about the types of arguments you might run and am not well versed in the literature, so be sure to explain your arguments clearly.  However, I do want novice debaters to understand their own arguments and to know the content well. Be sure to signpost and give me a clear roadmap. 

Speaker points are awarded on a combination of fluency, clarity, volume, correct word usage and pronunciation. I also score on the ability to speak articulately and logically in cross-ex and rebuttals. Please don't use racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist vocabulary or arguments. Also, please feel free to be assertive, but not rude or disrespectful to your opponents. 

I will do my best to disclose my decision when tournaments allow it, but will not provide extensive RFD's in person. I will try to provide specific and helpful comments on my ballots. I am up to date with current events, though not with critical theories.  I will vote on a kritik, but only if it is well-articulated and has sound evidence and reasoning. 

I have judged debate for three years with a preference to Policy and Public Forum. My primary exposure has been to lay debate.

I consider myself well read and up to date on current issues. I enjoy a debate where both sides demonstrate an understanding of the arguments they are presenting. My judgements are based solely on what is presented with no bias. If I hear something stated that is incorrect, it is up to the other team to challenge it. Failure to do so may result in a point for the team that used it.

For lay debates, I weigh the rebuttal rounds more heavily than the constructive rounds. It is one thing to present a lot of arguments, it is another to be able to connect them in a narrative that is both logically sound and persuasive. If you use your rebuttal time to just rehash your constructive arguments, it may lose my interest.

Above all, be courteous and respectful to your opponents and to the judge. Spreading is ok as long as you have practiced it.

I've been a lay judge since 2014, primarily for Policy, and also have experience in LD and PoFo. (Lots of IE experience, too.)

I'm pretty easy going, and if both teams agree on something (timing prep, sharing podium), I'm fine with it. If you spread, I can keep up, but my comments/ suggestions for you will be fewer. I'm a big fan of politeness and kindness between partners and between teams. We're all just here to do our best, and while intellectual sparring is great, there's no need to try to eviscerate each other. Let's have a debate, not a bloodbath!

About me:

Email chain: cameronnilles@gmail.com

NEW EDIT: I have taken ~1 year off from debate and will be fresh to the topic as well, everything else below is still valid. Prior to the 2019/2020 school year though I was judging 50+ rounds a year w/ TOC & National qualifying teams on my squad.

----

I have competed and judged for a combined +14 years (averaging 40+ rounds a year) at the varsity-national circuit level.

If I debated in this current era I would be a framework debater. Tech > Truth, up until the point where I need to evaluate directly two objective claims (this happens less than you would think).

I have not read every piece of critical literature that you have read to write your arguments.

I will vote on 0% risk if there is dropped defense or even much better warranted argumentation, but I default to a 1% risk calculus most of the time.

Communicating:

I am OK with any level of speed. I think it is worth reminding most debaters that I am (oftentimes) not looking directly at your evidence as you read it which means that varying tone/speed on tags is necessary. Only be rude if you can back it up.

What I aim for:

I believe that the debaters frame the debate round. Any RoB or Framework lens will stand and will guide my ballot unless contested. I will default to a policy maker/utilitarian if no one tells me otherwise. Overall, I aim to leave my biases towards positions out of an objective evaluation of the arguments as they are flowed.

Biases:

Debate is a game; create your own rules. However, ensure that they provide competitive fairness to both teams (I think fairness is intrinsic to debate/a competitive activity). I firmly believe that the K needs to provide a fair division of ground for the opposing team to argue - you need to explain what your alternative is doing well enough that I know what I am voting for, not simply that the plan is what I shouldn't.

If Framework wasn't applicable to a round I would be reading mostly a CP/DA combo. But that doesn't mean I won't hear your Kritik, just please make sure it follows the above two criteria (provides fairness, has an explainable alternative).

Things I like:

Make signing my ballot very clear and easy; take the easy way out. Creative topicality violations and well thought out theory debates. Uphold competitive equity. Don't use every second of your prep time if you are clearly ahead and don't need it. I believe some T debates can be resolved with only a bold "we meet (+ explanation)."

Pet Peeves:

Stealing prep and not realizing it. If no one is taking prep in the room do not be typing on your computer, flash/email time is not a free-for-all. Telling me a team dropped an argument when they didn't. The sudden shift of teams seemingly not flowing arguments makes for very poor line-by-line and that makes for worse quality debates. Card clipping will get you in a lot of trouble on my ballots; have integrity. If you say "cut the card there" I will ask to see your evidence (if not already on an email chain) and I will expect you to mark your evidence accordingly. I actively monitor for card clipping if your behavior makes me suspicious and I will drop teams that do any degree of clipping.

I did three years of policy debate in high school at CK McClatchy. I do not debate in college.

I did mostly K debate with a focus on queer theory. However, don't expect me to tech out and, through the power of ideology, assume you have arguments at the end of the round. I am far too lazy to make your arguments for you.

Don't assume I know the high school topic, because I don't know the core disads, acronyms, etc. Please just be clear and explain what you are talking about.

Be nice to each other. Have fun. Do what you're best at. In that order.

Do Not Steal Prep.

Do Not Clip.

If you bring me a diet coke, I'll be in such a good mood during the round I will just happen to give everyone an extra +.2 on their speaks.

Add me to the email chain, abigailtilli@berkeley.edu

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

I've judged lots of hs and college debates over far too many years. I am an experienced debater who has coached (as a volunteer) at the high school and college level. I am now supporting the West Campus debate program as my daughter is participating (Halbo). I coached and competed long ago for bhhs when it was an active and strong policy program. I also coached at sac state as a volunteer for a number of years. We were nationally competitive in both instances. At sac state we got a team to CEDA 1/4rs (after CEDA went to policy) and had the 5th speaker at nationals. The point is, I've heard some good debates over the years though I've certainly not been as active the last few years.

I'm up to speed on current approaches to hs debate. I will listen and vote on almost anything. That said, I come from a policy background. While I'll listen to what you want, my expectation is to expect to hear some semblance of a policy or alternative somewhere in the round. I've not yet heard a performance debate so I can't say for certain what I would do. I'm not inclined to believe I'd be your best critic though. Ks, t, disads, cp debates and framework arguments are all fine. I try to leave the debate up to you but do not believe any critic can actually check all their values, knowledge and beliefs at the door.

Speed generally does not bother me. That said, I'm older now and not as as inclined to do your work for you. You MUST be clear to be fast and effective in front of me. I am willing to let you know if you've lost me or are unclear if you want me to. I flow on paper. I will look at select evidence after a round but will not re-read your speech off a screen. Sign posting matters. You need to tell me where to apply your arguments and why they matter and how they should factor into my decision. If you don't, you leave it up too me, and may or not be pleased with the result. Drops matter as well. That said, you should tell me why the dropped argument is significant enough for me to vote on it or say eliminate a disad.

So, source qualifications matter in how I evaluate and weigh evidence. So does the date (when appropriate or meaningful to the argument, say brink cards). I'd much rather listen to a link debate than an impact debate but will vote on what is done in the round. T is by definition an a priori voting issue. If the negative wins t, they win the debate imho. Of course I'll listen to a different story if you want. I do not like new arguments in rebuttals. I try and police 2ar speeches accordingly and in particular (as negs does not get a chance...duh).

Not sure what else you would want to know so I'll just give you my pet peeves:

1-I do not like or respect tag team cross x. it will not effect my decision in a round but may effect both debater's speaker points.

2-Generally I will be timing speeches and prep time and I will decide when prep time is over. I do not stop your prep time until you basically start speaking. That is, prep time is burned at your risk for the purpose of sharing speech documents. Alternatively, learn to flow. I see too many debaters not flowing but relying on the screen. Silly choice.

3-Please be nice. I do not enjoy watching very smart teenagers being nasty to each other and your speaker points will reflect this reality.

Oh and remember to have fun.

I have been judging policy for one year as a parent judge.
I like it when arguments are very clearly explained to me.
Explain to me why I should be voting for you.
I am not 100% familiar on the criteria that are debated upon, so explain them as you come upon them or I will not understand your argument.
SPEAK SLOWLY PLEASE, or I won't be able to flow and understand your arguments, forcing me to give you a loss.

My experience: Teacher/coach in a UDL for 8 years. Never debated. I guess you could say I am an experienced lay judge who is OK with spreading, K, framework and other stuff lay judges don't usually want to hear about. Please slow down for contentions/signposts/tags/cites. 

I copied Toni Nielson because I agree with everything she wrote in her paradigm:
"Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful – 

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge 
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 10-15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner. 
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way. 

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate. 

Now you are asking,
Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. I lean more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate is not nearly as sophisticated as my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative in most instances. Framework - lean in the direction of the K. 

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of truth. BUT gigantic caveat, debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the truth is not a declaration to abandon refutation. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones of substance to the debate. 
Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!"                          

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 debated (mainly LD) for four years in high school primarily in my local circuit in Colorado, and very occassionaly on the national circuit. I like extremely traditional debate. If you are going to make any claim, I need to hear distinct warrants and impacts. I am ok with spreading on some level, but honestly just don't do it. Especially if you are unclear, your speaks will suffer and my decision will be affected significantly. It impresses me if you can concisely and simplistically convey an argument. It does not impress me when you are overly agressive, so plese be cordial with your opponent. I don't particularly like watching K or theory debates, and I generally base my vote heavily on framework. I also like to hear clear voters- tell me why you win, don't make me crystallize the round for you. Overall, speak cleary, be nice, and have fun!

Email: khristyantrejo@gmail.com

I debated in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL) in high school, made the Urban Debate National Championship twice, competed in Parliamentary (NPDA) for Tulane University and made it to Quarters at the NDPA National Championships. I've coached for Isidore Newman School (LA) and Stern MASS, currently coaching Elizabeth Learning Center. I've been active in debate for about 12 years.

You can't argue racism / homophobia / sexism / transphobia / ableism good arguments in front of me. Ever.

As a competitor I started with plan texts, Econ advantages, and running 7 offcase. I finished with a poetry aff, PICs, and committed to Foucault. I know what’s going on and want to offer a safe space for you to read your arguments.

Debate is a game, but the game can be changed.

Kritiks need to have links and some type of explanation of the alternative. Please don’t assume I know which privileged and old philosopher your K is based on—explanations are key!

Disadvantages need to have specific internal links and impact scenarios.

As long as you are contextualizing your scenarios, and the functionality of your scenarios compared to the other team, we should be good to go. You are entitled to read 1 off, or 2, or 3, or even 7, but I hope you’re ready to defend your model of debate and why the education you are advocating for is a good one.

I love a good T debate; and have voted aff on Condo before. Theory/T arguments should be well contextualized. As long as your providing specific reasons why procedural issues take precedent in the debate, we should be good to go.

At the end of the day, I need you to explain what my role in the debate is, why I should vote for you, and why the arguments your opponents made are insufficient for the ballot. Please make sure you are explaining/extending the actual warrants of the evidence you’re reading.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me or ask in person before the round.

PS, you matter.

I have been judging policy debate for the past two years (mainly league competition, not that much circuit debate). I prefer reasonable speed, not extreme spreading, but most importantly make sure you are clear enough so I can understand every syllable. If not, I will not be able to flow your arguments. I will tell you clear up if you are not enunciating the first couple of times. 

Case: I like a good case debate and will look at this first. 

Topicality: If the negative makes good arguments about why the aff is not topical, then I will vote on topicality. I like to avoid other theory arguments. 

Disads: If you explain it clearly, that is good enough

Counterplans: OK, acceptable.

Kritiks: I do not like these type of arguments, but if you explain them properly and clearly, I will vote for them.

I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach at Sonoma Academy. I debated policy two years in high school and cleared at several national tournaments, so I almost know things. That said, I have been out of the game for a while so...

I will not shake your hands bc germs are real, but it's not personal I promise.

If possible, I'd prefer an email chain to flashing. most times, flash drives take forever to use and drag debates out for too long.

I don't have super strong argument preferences, i.e. I won't reject anything immediately (except for blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic nonsense). That said, I probably do have higher and lower thresholds for certain arguments, which I'll try to lay out here.

Meta-Stuff:

Every argument should be a viable 2NR/2AR option, don't read clearly throwaway arguments just to waste time. you might as well just shorten your speech.

BE INCLUSIVE. if your opponents ask for pronouns, content warnings etc. you should provide them.

I default to offense/defense paradigm to start with, but I can be persuaded otherwise, just make the argument

I believe that my role as a judge is to evaluate the desirability of the affirmative. Take that as you will.

DO THE STUFF YOU'RE GOOD AT!!! Please don't read arguments you don't know just b/c you think they'll make me happy. they won't, and I want to watch you do you, not you do me (weird phrasing but its late and you get it).

Style - you do you. I'm a big fan of jokes, and the will make me pay attention to you more. If you aren't funny though, don't try too hard :)

Signpost/be clear when you transition between cards, I don't want to look at the doc unless I need to read evidence.

I like nature, so make some tree jokes and teach me something new about this planet and I'll be stoked.

I'm fine with speed, but please be clear and limit spitting bc GERMS and it is distraction.

Specific Args:

Counterplans - They pretty cool. I love CP texts that are specified to specific parts of the aff and thing that original CPs (not the states CP) are severely underutilized.

Disads - no reason I wouldn't like them. they go well with counterplans. I don't think zero risk is a thing, but I do think it's easy to win a much larger risk of the aff.

Kritiks - I'm down. I'm well versed in most literature, but that means I also expect you to be well versed in it. And I will notice and evaluate sloppy explanations. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and offensive, and I'd rather not listen to these debates. If you are going to read high theory, I'll have a similar threshold for explanation. The higher the theory, the higher the threshold. you also should answer questions in CX. MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. Winning debates by being an asshole is not cool and will be reflected in your speaker points.

!!!I do not think that performance in JV debate is a good thing. When executed properly, performance debates are some of the most interesting and important arguments that take place in this community, that being said, in JV debate that execution is not there, and it almost always devolves into some form of name calling or other disaster. I do not care if you are an amazing performance debater, in a JV pool, the chances are low that your opponents are similarly qualified, and I really really don't want to judge a debate that devolves into calling an antiblackness team white supremacist (it's happened and negatively affects the community).

T - default to competing interpretations, but will go either way. Don't read throwaway T arguments. Impact it out. Why does fairness matter?!!

Policy Affs- I'm down. I think that you should be ready to beat the advantage counterplan, and be reasonably topical. solvency advocates are a must - you should have a person that says we should do the plan and have NUANCED WARRANTS.

Non-Traditional Affs - I went to the UTNIF, so I'm familiar with the lit. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and I'd rather not listen to these debates. Other than that, updating K-aff uniqueness (trump makes state x) is a really persuasive argument, and something I'd love to judge. That being said, I have a very high threshold for pomo nonsense because I tend to think that stuff exists, and really do think that you should have a concrete advocacy statement.

a few arguments I think require more nuance-

I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires you to win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing debate can do for you, because it's loss that educates you and hones your skills. I never felt like I was no longer part of the debate community after going 2-3 at Fullerton.

you must be able to beat the Topical Version- I think that a TVA, even just being able to access your literature takes out almost all of your offense against framework. you should try to provide reasons that topical action (under the neg interpretation) specifically excludes your lit base.

NEG TEAMS - I'll appreciate you a whole lot if you just go for case turns. A lot of times, these affs don't make sense, and you can probably think of a cool way to turn them. obviously don't do it if it isn't a winning strategy though.

Framework - It's always good to know when theoretical or substantive strategies are strategic. Other than that, you should have a TVA, and offense against the counter interpretation.

Pet peeves:

please please please don't ask the other team "what cards did you read". Flow the speech, not the speech doc :)

explain. your. solvency. If I don't know how your aff solves the impacts at the end of the debate, I'll be comfortable voting neg on presumption, and uncomfortable weighing aff offense against framework or literally any other argument, because I don't know if the aff solves. on the flipside, if I do know how and what your aff solves, I will be impressed and very happy with you/very willing to leverage the aff as a reason framework is bad.

speaks -

>29.5 you should win this tournament, I'll probably tell my friends about you

29-29.4 - deep elims, you should do well at this tournament

28.5-28.9 - good, needing some improvement but should probably break

28-28.4 - average

27.5-27.9 - decent, but with some big rhetorical or strategic mistakes

27-27.4 - needing serious improvement

<26.9 you made me sad or said something evil

0 you clipped cards (this comes with an emphatic L)

If you show me that you've posted the relevant documents (1NC opensource, new offense) on the wiki after the debate, I'll give you a .2 speaker point boost because opensourcing is good and should be encouraged. If you don't know how, ask me and I'll help you set up a wiki.

Danlei Zou

Lowell High School '17

University of California, Santa Barbara '21

Email: Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please send to dazou0112@gmail.com and lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com - I'll be accessing one or the other during the rounds.

NOTE FOR GGSA STATE QUALS 2021:

I haven't judged any rounds on the 2020-2021 topic, so please assume I know nothing about your arguments (in reality I can probably understand most of them, but the burden is on you to show me). Speed is fine, but I won't hold it against you for not spreading. Quality and clariy in the debate is better than speed, and if there is a lay judge on the panel please respect that.

Background:

I debated 4 years of policy at Lowell High School and am currently not involved in college debate. I'm an environmental studies major, so I will be especially critical of anything that is factually incorrect in the realm of anything climate change, ecology, or biodiversity related.

If there's anything y'all have qualms on that isn't covered in my paradigm, feel free to email me; I'm more than happy to answer questions.

*DISCLAIMER*: I know the extent of my ability to judge debates and am very open and honest about it -- I have no problem admitting that my skill as a judge is not up to par with some of the others in the pool but I will do my best to keep up. If you prefer to read something that I say I'm not familiar with in my paradigm or like to pull technical tricks, I likely won't know it and will not be the best judge for you.

tl;dr:

1. Tech>Truth: I don't care what you run as long as its not offensive - just win the LBL and you'll get my ballot.

2. Flashing=/=Prep but don’t abuse it. Yes, I want to be on the email chain or in the speech doc room or whatever kids are using nowadays.

3. I default to a policymaking framework unless I am presented with a different framework in the round. Then, it is the other team's job to prove why the opposing team's framework is bad.

4. Please explain your arguments. Please please please. I was guilty of not doing enough analysis during debates in my high school career, and it's now blatantly obvious to me as a judge why that was important. Please explain and warrant why your evidence and arguments are important and why I should vote on them. I'd rather y'all choose a few of the most important arguments to explain to me in depth rather than spew as many lines as you can at me. I want to be able to fully comprehend your arguments and know why you think you should win the debate by the end of the rebuttals.

5. If there is no clash, I will be extremely bored and my facial expressions will reflect that. I am very expressive; anyone who knows me will tell you so. Exploit my expressive personality and know when you or the other team is saying something that's complete BS.

6. I will vote on presumption, but explain to me why I should. Simply saying "vote neg on presumption" without any explanation of why will not convince me.

7. IMPORTANT: if you don't know whether or not I'm familiar with your K (or like it), ask me before the round either via email or track me down somehow. I'm pretty easy to spot and am friends with like EVERYONE on Facebook so chances are someone on your team is probably friends with me.

8. I'd prefer not to call for cards after the round - I will be doing my best to keep up with reading the cards in speech docs during prep and whatnot. If you think the opposing team's cards are sketchy for one reason or another, say so during your speech. I will not point it out for you.

9. Be nice. If you are a shitty person your speaks will reflect that, even if you win the ballot.

10. Speed is fine. I'd prefer if you don't go your full speed, but as long as you are clear and are organized I will be able to flow you. If I can't, I'll say clear three times max and then stop flowing and do my own homework.

11. You do you. Do your best and go for what you think you're ahead on and what will win the round, not what you think I like.

Complete paradigm:

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation of a an action done by the United States federal government. It is difficult but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I will try my best not to let my personal biases interfere with what's happening in the round. That being said, it is the neg's burden to prove why reading a nontraditional aff is bad. A competent extension of framework all throughout the debate usually does this for me, but I think having a TVA and education/fairness impacts are key. Prove why their interpretation is bad for debate and you'll win my ballot.

Topicality: T is great. Run T. Personally I think limits is the most persuasive and easiest standard to win on, but do whatever floats your boat. I default to reasonability and competing interpretations. 2A/2Ns should really focus on explaining to me the impact debate and why you should win your education/limits claims in the rebuttals.

Theory: As the 1N who usually took theory for 5 minutes in the block I usually lean neg on theory, unless it's condo. 2 condo is fine, read more at your own risk. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Usually "reject the argument, not the team" is pretty convincing.

Kritiks: PLEASE EXPLAIN. Unless your K is security, neolib/cap, or Orientalism, I probably didn't read them in debate very often. I've studied and read quite a bit of literature on process metaphysics in college (Nietzsche especially, but also Baudrillard, Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger) so if you don't know and can't explain these figures' philosophies, I will be able to tell and will be less likely to vote on those arguments unless it's for a VERY blatant technical reason. Don't let that discourage you from running high theory Ks, I'll still vote on them if those debates are done well. I have a high threshold for K's; if you run one, you gotta explain how it links to the aff, how the alt solves/is a priori issue, and for the love of coffee please explain the jargon. Using big fancy words does not win you the debate. I know what epistemology and reps are, but you need to show me that you do. The more specific the K is the to aff, the better. Reading framework against K's is always a good idea - especially if you have no idea what the K is and feel that you can't win the K proper debate. However, I will not simply vote on "if we win FW then we don't have to win that the alt fails/solves". If the other team drops this, I will probably vote for you but I will not be happy about it. It is usually pretty easy to win that extinction is a prior issue than eliminating cap from society (Bostrom) in front of me, but I will not assume this if you don't read a card on it. Explanations are key!!!

Framework: I ran framework A LOT, way more than I would like to. The biggest problem with traditional framework v. a K aff is that it falls prey to the exclusion DA. K affs should be closer to the topic than not, but it is up to you to explain to me how your aff relates to the topic. I will vote neg on framework debates if the neg convinces me that K aff is just unrelated to the topic. We have a resolution for a reason. There are great K affs that engage with the topic, and even if your aff doesn't convince me that it does. Neg teams need to explain how their model of debate interacts with the aff.

Disadvantages: Love them. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Prioritize your impact work!! Make your links specific, especially if you are reading something generic like politics. The more specific the DA the better. Even though I love these debates, it's pretty easy for the aff to convince me that most DA's are stupid by using author indicts/smart analytics. Be smart and it'll save you loads of time.

Counter plans: I love watching good CP+DA/Case debates. Please have a net benefit/solvency advocate, or else you're probably going to lose the CP. I don't have a favorite type of counterplan, but I ran a lot of really specific PICs in high school and think they're cool.

Case: Too many teams disregard case as the debates go on. I like to see clash between the off case and the aff both from the aff and neg teams. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the aff team doesn't extend any impacts through the end of the debate, there is very little chance that I will be voting for you. Also, simply saying "extend the nuclear meltdown impact/Kagan card, that's our impact" is not an extension. Explanations are key.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or if you are blatantly rude. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

Speaker Points: I give speaker points based on how well you speak and your style of speaking, not based on technical things in round (there are exceptions). If you're great technically, you'll likely win my ballot and I think that's reward enough for substance in rounds. I want y'all to be encouraged by receiving speaks that aren't as reliant on your technical skill in round -- a great speaker doesn't necessarily win all of their rounds. Cade Cottrell describes this way better than I do and I pretty much agree with how he gives out speaks so check out his paradigm. I range between 27-29 mostly, < 25 is reserved for people who are blatantly racist, sexist, or mean. Or if you read wipeout. If you catch the other team clipping, record it and show me. Clippers get a 0. I've never given me a 30 -- convince me why you should be my first 30 and you'll get it.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:

Make me laugh! Jokes/puns are appreciated as long as they are not offensive. Snarkiness and sass are welcome, but never at the expense of the opposing team. I'll give you 0.2 extra speaks if you can tell me who I poached a small part of my paradigm from (hint: Cal).

DO NOT:
-be racist

-be sexist

-be homophobic

-read wipeout (willing to give leeway on this if it's justified, but it rarely is)