Ask me

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

hattieb@gmail.com <3

I did policy debate for 4 years at Westwood Highschool. 

Just explain to me why you win under the current framework. If you lose the framework you have to re-explain your argument for the winning framework.

Theory is fine. Kritiks are fine. Spreading is fine, but please be reasonable. I will say clear if I cannot understand you. 

Most importantly, have fun and be nice to each other!

Ask

Hello!

I debated LD for four years at Marlborough in Los Angeles and graduated in 2018 (so please slow down).

Arguments:

I ran mostly policy arguments in high school but am open to anything if it is clearly explained, extended, and impacted.

Please do lots of weighing to make the round as easy as possible for me to adjudicate!

If you want good speaks:

1) Be respectful.

2) Make good arguments.

3) Don't ask me how to get good speaks.

General:

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

IF YOU DID NOT GET FEEDBACK ON YOUR BALLOT FROM ME, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT EVANRFELDMAN@GMAIL.COM

Background:

HS Competitor at Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES) from the West LA district in California. High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.

Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:

CC Competitor at Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) from AFA D1

Uni Competitor at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) from AFA D5

Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA

DEBATE:

1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State (2016) , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats (2016), Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award 2016).

2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State(2017), Co-National Champion at NOFC (2021)

IE'S/SPEECH:

CA Community College (CCCFA) States: (2016-2017) 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE (2016). Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award 2016)

MI States (MISL) : Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner (2021). State Champ in Poetry and Extemp, 3rd in After Dinner Speaking (2022)

Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp Semifinalist in Ext (2016).

AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry (2022), Semi in Persuasion/Oratory (2021)

NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE (2021-2022), Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory (2021) , 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry (2021-2022)

NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE (All 2021)

Interstate Oratorical Association (IOA): National Qualifier (2021)

Professional Speech and Debate Association (PSDA): Season 2 Champion in Prepared Speech, Runner Up in Spontaneous Debate and Spontaneous Speech, 3rd in Indy Sweeps (All 2022)

Coaching Experience:

Coached middle school speech and debate for nine years, high school for eight years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years.

Congress: Champions/Runners Up at Harvard, Stanford/Palm Classic, NSDA, CHSSA State, CSULB (Jack Howe) and La Costa Canyon (Winter Classic). Finalists at Yale, Berkeley, UK Season Opener, MLK, Nova Titan, The Tradition, TOC Digital Series, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CMSF States, TOC, MS TOC

Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats

PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats

Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State

POI: Champion/Runner Up at CHSSA State/ NSDA Nats Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, NIETOC

OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CLU, CHSSA States

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.

2. Evidence

A. Recency

I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).

B. Citing

Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).

C. Sourcing

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.

D. Conflicting evidence

I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).

E Quality/Bias:

I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.

3. Delivery:

A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.

I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.

B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a 20-something year old adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.

d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.

It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).

Event Specific Notes

A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.

a. Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory

b. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.

c. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

d. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed and/or clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

e . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.

f. No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

g. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

h. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.

2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.

If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).

3. Speaking order

Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.

B. Within an argument

State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.

If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.

5. PO'S

Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.

Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Policy for 2.

Given that I did not debate LD in high school, I will judge the round based off of whichever arguments are winning under the prevailing framework. Regarding framework, make sure to prove why one is better than another and explain how you impact out to that specific framework. If you lose framework, make sure to impact under the winning framework.

When it comes to speed, I will say clear if you're going too fast. Keep in mind that I am not too familiar with spreading and doing so will most likely result in me not hearing crucial information which can only hurt you.

If you're running theory, make sure to explain the abuse clearly and tell me explicitly where I should evaluate the theory compared to the other arguments presented.

Overall, have a fun round and keep it simple. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the round begins.

I am most interested in hearing your own personal style of speaking that represents you as an individual and not a copy of other speakers.

My use of the word "speechiness"

There is a tendency for speakers to overemphasize certain words at the ending of sentences sometimes unconnected to the inherent concept of the text and more just for performance. Often this comes off as over the top, or even unnatural bc it is unfounded. I hear this A LOT and most often in novice speakers.

Please make an effort to discover your unique presentational qualities!! It takes time and is hard to do, but discovering this will not only do wonders for your speeches, but also follow you in your life forever making you a better communicator in all areas of your life.

Like Oscar Wilde said, "Be yourself. Everyone else it taken".

Opinion on crying: while this is most certainly a valid way to express sadness, anger etc. It is not the only way, and certainly not the most used method by the great actors. So many other ways to express emotions. Sometimes, crying feels like the the easiest. Force yourself to explore other subtleties. Watch Meryl Streep. She'll make us cry as the audience before she does.

Grammar: I hear the same mistake over and over again in speeches.

Woman - wuh-men. Singular.

Women - wih-men. Plural.

This is one of those examples of the English language that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to learn it. How in the world can we explain these pronunciations!!?? Truth is we can't explain them. Just need to memorize them. Very often I hear the singular used, when the speaker means the plural. Yes, I am standing on a soap box like a pedantic parent! hahaha....you're right. Call me out on it. But since this is a SPEECH competition, I feel it is the exact place to be critical of the way we speak. Yes?

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.  

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

Notre Dame '21, NYU '25

Chain/questions: debate.nikhilnavare@gmail.com

1A/2N

Scroll to the bottom for LD specific things.

Very short version

- Ok for Ks

- Better for planless affs now that I don't have to debate them

- Impact turns make me happy

- Organization is good, line-by-line is better, both is best

- Condo good, yes judgekick are defaults

General biases

Truth is tech, and vice versa, given that a true argument is much easier to win technically, and technically debating meta-level framing issues is important to convince me of the truth of the arguments you are going for.

Debate is not about the arguments themselves, but rather the execution of those arguments. This does not mean arguments don’t matter; arguments have different burden of proofs, but every argument is valid until proven otherwise.

Presumption goes to the team that advocates less change. If teams don't debate what that means, and if the 2NR includes a competitive alternative, presumption flips aff.

Clipping and other ethics violations/accusations will result in an automatic zero and loss for the team that does it or falsely accuses the other team. These need an audio recording or I need to hear it. I won't intervene if it's not egregious or there isn't a significant difference in the quality of debaters.

I will not vote on things that occur before the 1AC starts.

The following is a list of predispositions I have — they go out the window if you make an argument otherwise (or at least I try).

Planless Affs

For the aff:

Have a connection to the resolution. Convince me your advocacy is good, better than the (competitive) alternative, and actually resolves your impacts. On that note, actually have an advocacy. If the voting for the advocacy is only an in-round affirmation, I am a lot more sympathetic to negative “burden of rejoinder” T arguments. 

I think debate is a game, but it might be more. Explain why the "more" part outweighs the "game" part. I don’t think debate is not a game.

Please do actual line-by-line, counter-define words in the resolution, don't go for counterinterps like "direction of the resolution," don't just read [Spanos, Lundberg, Antonio, other silly authors] but have aff specific impact turns to fairness, pedagogy, etc.

The perm is a convincing argument especially if your aff doesn’t defend anything.

For the aff and neg:

Disads can link! Planless affs must be ready to defend against all possible disadvantages to their advocacy, physical or metaphysical. The argument “no link - aff is not fiated” is nonresponsive because all affirmatives, by the nature of the thought experiment of debate, are “fiated”. If neg teams can out debate aff teams on the DA then I will vote for it.

For the neg:

T-USfg is a possible 2NR. Defend only what you have to. Impacts that are more persuasive to me: procedural fairness, clash. Less persuasive: advocacy skills, fun, movements. Fairness is probably an impact but you need to do work telling me why that is the case.

The argument that K affs don’t get a perm doesn’t make sense. Be sure you have a very, very good link to their theory of power or the way they actualize their advocacy.

Word PICs are ROFL.

Solvency takeouts/presumption are very convincing and underutilized.

Topicality

Precision frames debatability: big but precise limits probably outweighs good but imprecise limits. That being said, more precision comes with diminishing marginal returns.

Competing interps > Reasonability. You have to invest some time explaining how to determine what is reasonable.

”T - Embodiment” is absurd. Broadly, any neg nonresolutional theory argument has a higher burden of rejoinder. 

Kritiks

A prerequisite to voting for you is if I can explain the link and alt mechanism to the other team by the end of the debate.

Links to the plan are probably good, and most of the time the aff gets to weigh their aff, and the neg gets their links. Neg teams need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the aff entirely, and aff teams similarly need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the K entirely.

You can probably read whatever you want to in front of me, granted you understand and can explain it well.

Advantages/Disads

Zero risk exists when you prove the chance of the impact scenario is indistinguishable from statistical noise. For you, this means yes, there is always a risk, and yes, sometimes it is worth rounding the risk down to zero.

Make good arguments, even when you don’t have evidence to support your claims. Smart analytics are convincing.

Turns case is important but matters insofar as you win a relatively higher risk of the DA. 2NR/2AR impact calc is not a new argument.

The politics disad, done well, is a fun debate to watch. Most of the time the neg wins, it's because they sheer out-evidenced the aff. Keep in mind how insanely unlikely the disad is, and use that to your advantage.

Case-specific disads are best, but are never read.

I’ve grown more tired with teams that have framing pages with “probability first” type arguments that use them to completely dismiss the DA. You still need to answer it. I’m more fond of offensive framing arguments, i.e. critiques of DAs. If you’ve mostly ceded the evidence debate to the neg and you’re really in a tough spot cardwise, analytics are still convincing arguments! Use that to your advantage.

Counterplans

Evidence which says the counterplan solves the aff is best and can be used to justify its theoretical legitimacy.

If the status quo is a logical option, then a 2NR which goes for a counterplan is not forever bound to the counterplan. I will compare the aff to both the status quo and the counterplan. I can be convinced otherwise.

Textual and functional > Functional only > Textual only.

Theory

Condo is most likely good, is definitely good when there's a new aff, and is questionable if there are performative contradictions and those are used to the negative's advantage in round. Qualitative > quantitative interps, but I can be convinced of a number if there’s a good reason behind it.

Probably good — PICs, 50 state fiat, agent CPs, politics DAs, counterplans without a specific solvency advocate. Arguments about the presence of a solvency argument are more convincing as a solvency push than a theory push.

Might be good — International fiat, counterplans which compete off immediacy and certainty, 2NC CPs in response to new 2AC offense (impact turns, straight turns, add-ons)

Probably bad — Counterplans which are not policies (against policy affs), floating PIKs, affs/alternatives which fiat entire structures out of existence

I default to reject the argument and not the team for most theory except condo, but can be convinced otherwise.

I can see myself voting on procedural arguments such as spec/vagueness, given it's not like 2 seconds and there's substantial time invested in the debate, or it's dropped. New affs bad is :/

Miscellaneous

Stolen from Aron Berger’s paradigm — "Ethically repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. At the same time, however, if you cannot defeat ostensibly “bad” arguments, then you are a bad advocate and you should lose."

If you have impact turns, run them. In the words of KHirn, “Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life here you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable.”

Speaks

Speaks have been, are, and always will be arbitrary. I will inflate or deflate speaks according to the tournament and division of that tournament that I am at. This means a varsity debater’s 27.8 could be a novices’ 29.2.

Make me laugh for better speaks.

No, you may not have a 30. The ballot is yours to take, but speaks are mine to give.

27.5 or more --- U probably get this

26 or less --- You clipped, were violent in some way, etc.

LD Version for UNLV

- If you exclusively go for skep and tricks or whatever you call them nowadays, strike me. I want to see good, quality, substantive debate that somehow resolves around the resolution.

- Conditionality is very much a voting issue in LD. Debate your interps; I can't tell you the amount of times teams just justify their own interp but never do comparative or framing work. Everything else is default reject the argument not the team, but I can be convinced otherwise. Theory is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Don't even try to convince me otherwise. Neg theory is farce, and I'll give the aff a lot of leeway on dropped ASPEC spikes.

- Phil arguments are interesting, but never used in policy. I'd require more explanation than other judges to vote on these arguments, but please don't discount them just for that reason. Go for what you go for best.

Add me to the email chain please: vitoperez117@gmail.com

Please email me any questions regarding my decision. On the Subject line, please provide the name of the tournament, your team code, and the round number.

Experience
Bravo Medical Magnet HS (2010-2013)

UC Irvine (2013-14): 2014 NDT Qualifier and 2014 CEDA Octafinals

Overview

My ideal debate has
a) well-researched positions that are communicated clearly, concisely and are easily flowable, and

b) direct refutation of arguments that can be visualized on the flow.

Line-by-line refutation is most preferred. Grouping arguments is acceptable if you identify what premise they all share that you are refuting.

The literature bases I’m most familiar with are around afropessimism, settler colonialism, capitalism, whiteness, biopolitics, semiotics, and (some) psychoanalysis.

Prerequisites to earning the Ballot:

1.) Be Clear: This is a communication activity. You are persuading the judge. I'm slightly hard of hearing, so if I can't understand you, I'll say "CLEAR". I will repeat only twice per debater. Lack of clarity will reduce speaker points and will make it difficult to flow and genuinely understand the argument. This rule is most important during OVERVIEWS and ANALYTICS.

SLOW DOWN for Plan texts, Counterplan texts, Advocacy texts, Permutation texts, and PIC/PIK texts. If I have to look at the speech document for the TEXT, I will remove half a speaker point. This is a speech activity. If it weren't, we would only need to share word documents over email and we wouldn't need to be physically present at tournaments.

Speaking for/over your partner (or puppeteering them) will reduce both of your speaks. Debaters should be able to speak for themselves in a speech activity.

2.) Complete the argument: A complete argument contains a claim, warrant, and evidence. An incomplete argument will be flowed for reference but ultimately will not be evaluated. If an argument is completed in a constructive, I will evaluate it. If it is completed in a rebuttal, it is a new argument and I will not evaluate it.

3.) Explain Key Theories/Concepts: Assume I am a lay judge who only knows how to flow. Do not assume that my familiarity with certain literature bases will allow you to skip over explaining key philosophical, economic, or political concepts and chains of logic. Doing so risks skipping warrants, which means you've made an incomplete argument that I will not evaluate. Returning to the first prerequisite of clarity, if you are not clear I might not completely understand the concepts you explained. Then, your warrants and analytics might be absent on my flow. Don't let that happen.

Also, DO NOT use abbreviations or acronyms until you have spelled them out for me. Do not leave me to guess. I might not flow it.

4.) Tell me who I am: Role of the Judge. Dictate to me how I ought to view the round--as a policymaker, a critic, an educator, a revolutionary, etc. Otherwise, my default position is to evaluate the round as a policy-maker. I have spent too much time post-round thinking about how to weigh impacts and advocacies that clash and are both well-researched. Do not leave me at the end of the round with my biases.

5.) Tell me what the ballot does: Role of the Ballot. Dictate to me what the purpose of the ballot ought to be: for example, does it simply go to the team that did the better debating or does it change the structure of debate or the debate community? Moreover, what the ballot ought to do/be depends on what DEBATE should be about. In short, delineate your model of debate (what debate should be about) and defend why we should affirm that model of debate.

6.) Tech over Truth: I will only evaluate what is said in the round not what I know outside the round. Prioritizing truth claims relies on judge intervention which nullifies the argumentation within the round and the purpose of the activity. Prioritizing tech minimizes judge intervention because the argumentation in the round determines the ballot.

Specifics

Aff/Neg Roles: The affirmative must change the status quo via fiat or performance. The 1AC must make the status quo net better. The negative must prove the affirmative either DOES NOT change the status quo or makes the status quo net worse. Sounds too basic but is a fundamental theoretical issue about the model of debate that debaters gloss over with statements like "we only need to prove the aff is a good/bad idea".

I find myself wanting to vote Neg on presumption in debates in which the Aff does not meet the burden of changing the status quo or does not provide a counter-interpretation to "changing the status quo". To clarify, I won't vote on presumption if the argument is not made.

I believe the neg should have the status quo as an option, only if the neg makes this argument. Unless the debate becomes a method vs method debate, the focus of the debate is the 1AC's effects on the status quo.

Framework: Tell me why I ought to prefer your model of the debate. The more comparative the standards and impact debate, the better. For example, tell me whose scholarship/pedagogy should be preferred with clear disads to the other team’s education claims. As a judge, I do not take a position on the structural fairness vs procedural fairness debate, except that fairness (structural or procedural) should be explained as an impact in and of itself. Otherwise, I am likely to interpret fairness as an internal link to an impact waiting to be articulated.

Topicality/Theory: Will vote on it but my threshold is high because in the debates I've judged, abuse in-round is not clearly articulated (or that it's potentially abusive) or it is unclear what kind of ground the aff destroyed or the extent to which the negative was unable to generate substantial clash or the aff killed education on topic literature. If neg definitively proves in-round abuse, I'll vote on T.

Topical versions of the Aff are extremely persuasive because they prove that the 1AC's content is non-competitive with topicality, which means that being un-topical is not uniquely key to access 1AC offense. Neg doesn't have to prove solvency; only that the content and performance of the 1AC is not competitive with affirming the resolution.

Disadvantages: I’m not always familiar with abbreviations so please explain them at least once. For politics debates, I like case-specific specific links. If you only have generic links available, contextualize the links to the warrants and evidence of the 1AC or the warrants and premises you have elicited from the cross-ex of the 1AC. Returning to the third issue of explanation, explain the economic and political concepts that prove the disad.

Counterplans: Slow down substantially so I could catch the full CP text instead of relying on CX to clarify for me or waiting throughout the debate for the text to be fleshed out. Solve for your net benefits, don't link to them. I don’t dislike any specific CP. Agent, consult, delay CPs...I could vote on them.

Plan-Inclusive Counterplans/Kritiks: May or may not be abusive. I will consider voting on it if neg proves textual and functional competition. If aff does not impact a lack of such competition, then the PIC is legitimate. Provide an impact to "Mooting the 1AC". Provide defense for this impact.

Kritiks: Do not depend on tag-lines and buzzwords for explanatory power. Be well-read on your literature base. If I recognize that you mischaracterize, oversimplify, or misunderstand the thesis of the K, your speaks will decrease.

Starting point debates/Root Cause debates: I evaluate these debates just like a framework debate: competing models of structural analysis. Thus, I compare standards/net benefits. If your analysis has a wider scope, why is that good? If it has a narrower scope, why is that good? If your starting point historically precedes the other team's starting point, why does that mean I should prefer your starting point. I ask these questions because these are the questions I am left with at the end of the debate. Dictate to me the criteria for comparing starting points. Without it, you are asking me to intervene with my own analysis. Don't do that.

Alternatives: By the 1NR, it should be clear how the alt solves. Whether this is via fiat or via scholarship (epistemological/ontological model) should be established BY THE BLOCK.

If something happens in-round and one team argues that the other's performance/language/etc is problematic in some form, explain how the significance of this issue outweighs the rest of the debate (i.e. why should I pay attention to this before analyzing the debate itself)--which means engaging in the framework debate.

If this is a new argument in the rebuttals, you have a higher threshold for proving why this outweighs the rest of the debate or why I should/can moot the 1AC.

Conclusion

Debate ought to encourage safety, fairness, and education.

Everyone should feel as safe and comfortable as the community can make itself to be, even though safety and comfort are effects of power and are not equitably distributed.

Debaters should be able to substantially engage with the topic and each other. Please disclose arguments and evidence properly. Please share enough with the other team before the round so they can understand and at least attempt to make arguments.

Everyone should be able to learn from the activity, win or lose.

The team that violates any of these tenets will be denied the ballot.

Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.

My email is anish.ramireddy@gmail.com.

I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.

I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.

Other things:

It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x

Smart analytics can beat carded evidence

A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.

You can insert rehighlighting

Default judgekick

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.

tech>truth

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework and clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.

Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

I believe that debate is a game. Play to win. Run your theory shells, specs, whatever you need to. Be strategic. Literally everything is up for debate, including the in-round rules. Keep that in mind when you decide what your voters are.

Speed is fine to a point. If it becomes too much I will make it obvious.

If you're going to run any critical arguments, clarity becomes paramount, since I likely won't be as well read on the subject as you.

Write my ballot for me. Make my job easy.

I'm a coach.  Blank slate.  I'm pure flow in all formats.  I'm fine with speed.  Fine with anything pre or post fiat in LD and policy.  Team or debater who wins the flow wins the round.  No intervention.  I will vote on topicality.  I will vote on theory.  I will vote on case.  I will vote on K's.  Depends who better sells that I should prefer their voters.

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.

Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--

T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.

DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.

CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things--

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.

Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't about things that happened outside the round.

Be nice.

From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:

"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."

I debated in high school and college, and I also coached both high school and college. Decades ago. I flow, and I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate and don’t slur your words. I will judge the round based on what you argue.

Be kind. Don’t be obnoxious.

Since I’m old school, I have little patience for kritiks and theory. I expect topical debates. Don’t waste our time with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. Turn your argument into a disad, and you may have something I’d vote for. If both sides agree on a framework, I will likely apply it unless it is completely silly. I will not adopt a framework that asks me to vote for the team who says “banana” the most times in the round, even if both sides ask me to do so. If there is no agreement on framework, I will likely apply utilitarianism, even if nobody asks me to do so. Do not read me a poem, or tell me a story, or try to win the round by letting me know how the other side’s arguments make you “feel.” Not gonna work. High speaks go to those with great, on topic, clash.

I don’t like planless affs because I think they are abusive. The aff should always have a plan that relates to the topic.

I will of course consider voting for a counterplan. But be careful. I am voting on the resolution, not the plan. If the neg gives me a topical counterplan, I’m inclined to vote aff.

Do not speak in a monotone. Vary your pitch, pace, and volume. Make eye contact. Use cross ex wisely. If you are going to ask for cards, I expect you to do that in cross ex or using prep time. If the other side has a better argument, you will not win the round if you just repeat the argument they already blew out of the water. I only extend arguments that are unrefuted.

If I have to flow the aff arguments and the neg arguments on separate pages because they are talking about completely different things, that's not a debate. I like a round with lots of clash that forces me to weigh the arguments the aff won against the arguments the neg won. That's a good debate.

I'm a traditional judge.

4yrs LD Experience 2 Years Varsity

Speak Clearly and I would prefer if you don't SPREAD (I'll tank your speaks).

Clash a lot

Make sure to say why I should prefer your value over the opponent and to really emphasize this. The framework is very important when I take into account everything to vote for. The framework tells me what I should value most. If you have identical values, just say " I agree with my opponent." At the end of the round, I'll start weighing arguments based on how well they achieve their value. Or if you were to tell me to prefer prob > magnitude then I'll give priority to prob arguments in the round and give the round to the debater who showed him impacts are more likely to happen. Of course, I want solid justifications for this - you cant tell me to prefer prob over the magnitude and not explain the reasoning. I won't do the legwork for you

Make sure to weigh your impacts and extend them throughout the round. The argument has to appear in all your speeches and I won't take into account an argument that you dropped in the 1AR but bring back in the 2AR.

I am very a traditional judge, No k's, theories, and etc.

Edit: 2021: I haven't participated in LD Debate in about 2 years — will certainly be slightly rusty.