I am a parent judge with some background with debating. Please talk slowly and clearly and explain the terms used. Please use signposting. Please email me your case ahead of the debate round to mrudhula.mb@gmail.com so I can follow along. Thank you.

Hello! My Names Dylan and I'm on Western Washington University's Debate team, I was asked to come help out this weekend and judge some awesome people. I'm excited to see everyones performances and debates

have fun this weekend and hopefully i'll see you in a round :)

Add me to the email chain: ashleychen@live.com & interlakepolicydebate@gmail.com

Hi! I debated for 2.5 years (9th-11th) for Interlake HS and am currently a first year student at NYU Shanghai. Treat me similarly to a parent judge. I have no topic knowledge and spreading needs to be a bit slower and clear. Lastly, please be kind to your opponents.

Experience:

I was a 2A for most of my time at Interlake. Topics that I've debated on include immigration, arms sales, and a bit on CJR. Affs I read include EB-3s and Taiwan. 2NRs were usually set col during the arms sales topic. I've dabbled in everything but at the same time not too familiar with anything.

Preferences:

1. Warrant out your arguments. Clash, otherwise my vote will just be a matter of my personal opinion. 2NRs/2ARs should present to me a story of the neg/aff and why I should vote for them. Overviews here are great! Weighing is very important - why one impact is greater than the other.
2. Policy leaning, but will listen to everything.
3. Theory. Frivolous theory isn't okay, just remember to answer it.
4. Explain your acronyms. Some acronyms are okay, i.e. NATO, but others might be niche to the topic.
5. Kritiks. Might not understand the literature, but pretty familiar with IR, cap, and set col. Aside from these Ks, I need a clear explanation of the K and its theory of power. There should be a clear link somewhere to the aff, and it must be explained so I can understand.
6. Okay with non-traditional/K affs, but again, I might not understand the literature.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions about the RFD, debate, or NYU Shanghai!

Updated 1/12/23 for Mt. Vernon

Background

I am a sophomore at Columbia University. I did policy debate at Interlake HS for 4 years as a 2A and went to the TOC. My argumentative style was heavily policy leaning until my senior year, which was much more “flex”.

Top Level

I have zero predispositions towards the vast majority of arguments in debate. Technical skill matters far more to me than the type of argument you are going for; all I ask is that you attempt to have good faith engagement with your opponents’ arguments and to stick to the flow as much as possible.

Otherwise, here are a few thoughts that frame how I view debate:

-- 2ARs/2NRs would benefit greatly from 15 second overviews explaining why you won. I think 2As/2Ns worry too much about answering every single argument on the line by line at the cost of not having a coherent explanation of what the ballot should look like. Having that kind of global strategic vision is much more important than answering the fifth subpoint on the perm debate!!

-- Clash please!! Explain how arguments interact, not just why your arguments are correct. Cross-apply and concede arguments with intent. Be willing to admit when you are wrong just as much as when you are right.

-- K teams should focus more on explanations of theories of power and link specificity. Hiding behind buzzwords does not make your argument more persuasive :’)

-- Policy teams should aim for quality over quantity. Rebuttals should isolate fewer pieces of main offense/defense on each page.

Pre-Round

Put both emails on the chain:

brianchen49@gmail.com

interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

Make the email subject something that makes sense (tournament, round, teams, etc).

PLEASE be aware of power dynamics within debate - this can take many forms:

-- White cishet men domineering over minority debaters

-- Being rude to each other and/or your partner

-- Being unnecessarily aggressive/overdoing it against debaters that you are substantially better than

I'll react negatively if any of these happen - please don't!

Misc.

Email me directly if you have questions about this paradigm, my RFDs, Columbia, my experience with debate, or anything else.

I care a lot about the debate community and want to see all of you succeed. Please do not hesitate to reach out!

hi im kai! I did 4 years of debate in hs for Kamiak and im currently a senior studying computer science at university of Washington with a specializations in algorithms and ai! my debate background is that i did policy in hs and qualled to the toc and stuff. i also have coached policy, ld, and pufo since graduating.

my pronouns are he/him or they/them‏‏ i really have no preference.

add me to the email chain: daikaile13@gmail.com

NOTE: I have not judged debate for like 2 years, so please talk to me like i know legitimately nothing about the topic

policy paradigm

tldr – read whatever you want, im good with anything. I ran args from queer asian poetics to hard right policy affs so just argue well :)

some tips and things about me:

- more flow oriented and im fine with speed

- i don’t think debaters have to be nice, but please don’t be obnoxiously rude.

- i tend to nod my head to things that i am responding well to or if i’m confused it will probably be visible so looking up from the flow or computer occasionally could help u!

- i dont know much about this topic so pls avoid too jargon-y words!

- also it takes me afew seconds to adjust to spreading sometimes so if you could start your speech just a bit slower and then amp up in like 5 second to full speed that would help me a lot thnx!

‏‏‎ ‎

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎topicality – because i’m not super familiar with the topic if you go for t I would appreciate you slowing down at parts so i can really digest the arguments. in general, im not the perfect judge for t but if you win it you win it

- for aff – the aff doesn’t win reasonability without a counter interpretation, however I think leaning on reasonability is usually the right move

- for neg – a good t debate should (1) have comparative impact calculus on the standards debate and (2) probably have a caselist. I do not think im the best judge to go for contrived t violations infront of because I tend to lean aff in those debates but also if you do impact calc right then it shouldn’t be small bc ur standards have massive implications for the topic.

‏

kritiks – where im most comfortable and have the most experience. but like a lot of k judges, I actually find myself voting against the k because teams tend to just throw out jargon words or find 6 different ways to make a “structural antagonism” link.

- the neg should contextualize the link to the aff, have external impacts for them, and explain why each one turns case and is a reason for competition. the link specificity is what makes k debate persuasive so take advantage of that. that being said, you need to win either an alt that resolves the links or a framework question that resolves your offense while nullifying the aff’s normative mode of politics.

- the aff should probably challenge the alt with both theory and substance, hedge back against self serving framework args, and answer the k contextually with the affirmative (as in don’t let your aff get lost in the muddle of ontology questions, keep it relevant and central to the debate). please just have a coherent strategy like if you are reading a hard right aff, impact turn the k and leverage your aff’s huge impacts. if you are soft left, you might not wanna say heg good but rather go for the perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits. regardless, make it obvious to me that you have thought out the kritik prior to the round and have developed a larger narrative as to why the aff is still a good idea.

- as for literature bases im probably most familiar with antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, deleuze, imperialism/set col, and embodiment args. I am fine with Baudrillard, bataille, and psycho debates, but I’ll probably need you to unpack them a little more in cross-x and make arguments past ~we are insurrection and our performance is transgressive~.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

k affs – your aff should probably talk about the topic and should have a competing model of debate. if you are kritiking debate, i'll prob be more persuaded by framework but also if you win you win. embodiment framing? cool. semiotic insurrection? sure, why not. i myself did identity performance affs so I tend to like that avenue a bit better, but if you wanna do some white pomo stuff, and if you can explain high theory args in a way that is palatable and accessible to my feeble stem major brain then go for it! I will say that framing and impact calc is esp important in k aff v fw debates. the aff needs to explain to me why something like minority participation outweighs procedural fairness or how access controls the internal link to portable skills. the same goes for the neg, explain to me how your model of debate can encompass the aff’s offense or how procedural fairness is the only thing my ballot can solve in round. a lot of times in these debates it gets to the final rebuttals and both sides have just really not articulated why their thing is bigger and why it warrants a ballot which makes everybody in the room unhappy so pls try to do impact calc

- also, the neg should probably answer case, even if they aren’t “predictable” and you “don’t have well researched arguments”/ cards - you need to put ink on case because half the time just analytically breaking down how illogical the k aff’s method is can go a long way. I will say, however, I do think that the strat you go for should be tailored to the aff you’re hitting and it’s perceptually disappointing to watch an amazing k aff only to watch the neg stand up and read the most uninspired neg strat ever.

- i actually see myself voting for framework teams a lot because the aff really drops the ball and they let the debate no longer be about the 1ac but rather be about framework. please keep your aff alive and central in these type of debates - do things like extend the performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc.

- as for neg teams - i lean towards fairness being an internal link HOWEVER i will happily vote for it as an impact if you are winning it. i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. but with that i will say - k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~. innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks

‏‏‎ ‎

disads – I don’t think I really need to explain much for this one but here are some of my thoughts – disad should turn case somehow and links should be contextualized. ptx disads can be really great arguments and I will reward well researched and original takes on the political process of enacting the plan. that being said, I don’t fw riders disads. I do think there can be 0% risk of a disad, esp given than the internal links are already extrapolated lol. case specific disads are always a plus. also, framing rarely is enough by itself to answer the disad bc of turns case args but if you win aff framing with defense/offense on the disad then you are prob in a good place

‏‏‎ ‎

counterplans – aff theory vs counterplans are underused and a necessary check against how abusive cps have become in debate. pics and process cps are probably abusive in truth but its debate so like if you win ur .01% better than the aff then im gonna pick you up no question. aff needs to win offense against the cp AND explain why that outweighs the net benefit.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

‎theory – underutilized in policy and can be really interesting to watch, so here are some of my opinions.

- condo is probably good but anything over 3 is ridiculous

- id rather see you go for substance than theory in a round where you are ahead on both and ill reward your speaks for doing so

- reading a ton of conditional planks that fiat away any solvency deficits is probably bad and I encourage aff teams to beat on this with theory‎

‏‏‎ ‎

case – do it please (esp the k teams out there). good case debate = good speaker points, and affs so often drop warrants in 1nc case answers that you should extend as conceded solvency arguments. and to the k teams, even reading links on case and contextualizing the argument to the specifics of the affs advocacy is enough for me. case turns are easily the sexiest arguments you can make infront of me so please do things like PLEASE read heg bad or china rise good esp when reading a k.

ld paradigm: I'm competent I swear but prefer progressive flavors of ld but I can evaluate traditional ld just fine

I’ve been involved in debate since 1999, when as a HS sophomore I joined the MVHS team as a policy debater. My first affirmative case was about DADT. The first disad I remember was about the Gore v Bush 2000 election. The first counterplan I ran abolished the military. A few things about my background influence the way I judge:

1) Back in the day my favorite judges were those that said the debate was up to the students — they set most of the rules about the content of the debate. I strive to follow this example and minimize the intervention of my own proclivities in the way I judge, with the exception that I remain convinced that arguments are not mere assertions — “the sky is blue, voting issue” — and thus I believe complete arguments begin the burden of rejoinder/refutation. I don’t have to agree with an argument to vote for it, especially when it’s not countered, but I do reserve the right to dismiss arguments that are not fully explained or which lack essential pieces of the “claim, warrant, evidence” puzzle.

2) As a HS debater, my least favorite judges said their paradigm was “comms” focused: although it claimed to be an orientation towards the forms of presentation — i.e. speed, evidence citation, organization, eye contact — I quickly learned that it was paradigm was typically a euphemism or mask, revealing or concealing other preferences, including about theory and types of arguments (counterplans, kritiks, etc.). As I got older and gained more experience, I realized that these judges nevertheless had a point. Debate *is* a communication activity. The game is not reducible to research and logic alone. Successful arguments — successful debaters — take this into account, and my evaluation/feedback will as well.

3) I’m no longer a policy debate purest (elitist), though its with this format that I’ve spent the most time, first at MVHS and then as a policy debater at Michigan State University and later as a coach at Whitman and the University of Georgia. I’ve also coached and judged: LD, PF, World Schools, American Parli, British Parli, Asian Parli, and World Schools. Although each format has certain unique eccentricities, the truth is that all these styles of debate have far more in common than most participants realize.

4) From 2014-2020, I lived in China and coached mainly PF, World Schools and BP. Once a year I would bring students back to the US to debate at Harvard, Stanford, and Berkley.

5) Readers beat talkers, especially when talkers fail to read.

6) I follow the Chilean antipoet Nicanor Parra’s proposition that real seriousness rests in the comic, which I realize now is sadly lacking in this paradigm. What do I mean? I mean debate hard, take it seriously, but don’t forget that this is a game. It should be fun.

7) As a general rule, specificity >>> generality.

8) Anything worth doing is worth doing well, provided that pursuit of excellence does not become an alibi for treating other people badly. Treat your opponents, partners, judges, coaches and everyone else with respect, including yourself.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and likely indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread.

I was a policy debater all through high school and I competed at Willamette University participating in British Parliamentary for four years.

I have a few preferences. Tag team is okay, as long as it is not abused, this will lead to lower speaker points and bad ethos. Speed is fine, but a noticeable difference between your tags and your evidence would be nice. I would like plans to be read at the speed of your tag lines (a little slower than evidence slower).

As for my paradigm, I like to think that I am a tab judge. I have not judged a lot because I graduated last year, so I am still trying to figure out my judging style. With that said, I ran critical and policy/stock arguments in high school and I would be okay with hearing either in a round. But, with all arguments, I want a strong link. The more specific the better. Also, big stick impacts that are very unprobable are probably not going to persuade me much, unless they have gone uncontested. Both of these style preferences go for any debating style.

Topicality: I like a good technical debate, most of my neg rounds were won on procedurals. RVI's are something I will not listen to though. The most important part of T for me is that it's legitimate to a degree where I don't feel silly signing the ballot for you, but like any arg, if it's cold hard conceded and you flush it out, you'll get my ballot. Good standards will persuade me too. Just give me something to vote for honestly. I will probably default to reasonability.

Framework: It's important. If you only can win one argument for me, choose this one. But don't forget that you have to win your arguments under this framework, too.

Theory: I'm okay with multiple worlds, but you have to choose one in the end. Don't run something unconditionally with something that is conditional, please.

Kritiks: As a debater I ran soft kritiks mostly, with this being said if you want to have a high theory debate with authors like D & G or Baudrillard that's fine, just have good over views in rebuttals and take time to explain the theory you're presenting. If you feel like you run the risk of me not knowing your lit - I really encourage you to read framework - same with any other critical argument. While I am open to any kritikal argument, I'm not fond of people running death good args, and under any circumstances, if you run a k based off on an ontological perspective that you don't identify with, I will doc you major speaks and it will come into play when deciding the round.

Counterplans: PIC's annoy me. I really hate them, I think they're abusive. Unless you have great theory to justify yourself, I will not be pleased. Any other counterplan is fine.

Advocacies: For the K and CP, I like a good perm debate, but you have to go more in depth on the flow- solvency, time frame, just throw some other basic args on the flow. As far as the status of your advocacies go, I'm fine with conditional, unconditional, and dispositional (i guess if you insist, just explain dispo). Unless I am given another definiton, I define dispositional as only getting to kick the advocacy if there's offense on it.

Disads: Don't be scared to go for one disad in the 2NR if you're winning it. With this being said, I want and NEED a good link. if it's case specific, recent, and has great warrants, and you do the rest of the work on other parts of the flow, you're good to go. I also want a good impact debate- and I usually default to probability.

I don't know the arguments on this years topic all that well, so don't expect me to understand arguements just because you have said the name or the acronym.

Lastly, your actions in the round matter. Microagressions will not only be taken into account when calculating speaker points, but also in calculating the outcome of the round. Debate can be a game or a pure learning opportunity, but it is not a place to exclude.

Thanks, and email me at brycehenshaw123@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Hey everyone, I'm a parent judge so I don't really know how this debate stuff works so please explain any jargon or arguments. Overviews at the top of each advantage and each off case if appreciated. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD, I do not know what you are saying. I would prefer if you don't run a K, I don't understand normal policy debate I surely don't get Ks. Please prioritize explaining your pints I'm not very experienced so the one who wins will probably the one I understand best, so please explain your args, talk slow, and explain stuff in simple terms.

Trent Kuykendoll (he/him)

Bellingham High School

Add me to the chain: trentkuykendoll@gmail.com

Top-Level

I’m an ex-tab judge who now self-identifies as a flow judge. Tech > truth, however, will intervene (specifically in impact weighing) if those arguments go unaddressed by both teams. Here is a pref cheat-sheet before we go into the weeds:

Speed Clarity -----------X----------------- Spread

Depth More args ---------------------X------- More development

Topicality Non-voter --------X-------------------- #1 Issue

Inherency Non-voter --X-------------------------- #1 Issue

K Debate Maybe Cap ------------------------X---- Try your craziest strat.

Impacts Magnitude -------------------X--------- Probability

K Affs Nah ----------------------X------ Yeehaw

Performance Nah ---------------------------X- Yeehaw

Fairness I/L ------X---------------------- Independent Voter

Education I/L ---------------------------X- Independent Voter

Theory Vios DTA --------X-------------------- DTD

Condo Bad -------------------X--------- Good

PICs Bad ---------X------------------- Good

Agent CPs Bad ----------------------X------ Good

Adv. CPs Bad ------X---------------------- Good

Int. Fiat Bad -------------------X--------- Good

Stock Issues

I have no loyalties to stock issues and winning a stock issue on the neg will not win the round. I need a reason to vote against a team that is un-topical, has no inherency, etc. I often have a hard time buying half-baked T arguments. If you’re going for topicality, you should probably collapse to T in the 2NR. The other stock issue I have my gripes with is inherency. Full disclosure, I almost never buy that a lack of a barrier to the plan is coherent argument, (however if you can win a round on inherency alone for a plan that has not been implemented already, I’ll give that team perfect speaks… good luck). As far as other stocks go, explain why they’re relevant to the ballot and please, for my sanity, don’t say “harms”.

Theory

A 2-hour round is non-negotiable as are -isms. Outside of these, the rules are for you and your opponents to agree upon and if there is something in round that you don’t agree with, run theory on it. If it does not require the round to be stopped, I will not intervene and I will tell you as much if asked (this means I don’t have any opinions on tag-teaming, flex prep, clipping, altered speech times, etc. unless brought up as a theory argument). I tend to be more willing to drop specific arguments or err one way on evidence or during ties. This being said, I am more likely to drop the team if the round is collapsed to that theory argument in rebuttal. I have no problem with Affs kicking case and going for theory.

I enjoy well developed (emphasis on well developed) theory rounds. I tend to skew condo good, unless the neg is running 3+ conditional counter-advocacies. I have a much lower threshold to buy DTA than DTD/DTT. If you go for drop the debater, I will expect the abuse, real and potential, to rise to the level at which only dropping the team is a sufficient sanction. For this reason, if you want me to buy a DTD argument, I would recommend going for that alone in the second rebuttal, regardless aff or neg.

If you have further questions, ask pre-round.

I am a parent judge:

Please don’t spread, please speak clearly.

I have minimal topic knowledge, so don’t assume I understand all acronyms, etc.

Since I have been increasingly judging LD as well as continuing to judge Policy, I thought I should briefly discuss my LD paradigm. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

MY LD PARADIGM:

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! OK, but, really, please do read the Policy paradigm below as well as this LD paradigm. Since all LD topics have some policy aspect to them, I remain interested in that, but I also enjoy a good V/C debate, which is essential to LD - if you don't want to have that discussion, you might as well do a Policy debate performance case, since Policy doesn't use values/criteria either.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention, especially if you relate everything in your case/your opponent's case/V/C back to it. In that sense, LD requires far more mental and organizational aerobics and acrobatics than Policy does. You need to deal with your case, your opponent's case, ensure your V/C are upheld and demonstrate either that they are superior to your opponent's V/C or that your case meets both your and your opponent's V/C. I am fine with plans and with counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than dealing with the theory of debate.

MY POLICY PARADIGM:

I like Policy debate because there's a structure of sorts and because I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the three primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy; inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems, and, presumption, which is a default policy-maker position and to which few people today appeal. I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” That’s simply abusive and I will cheerfully agree w/the Aff that calls foul on this. Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I also like cases that are at least minimally topical. For example, if the topic calls for the USFG to substantially increase security cooperation with NATO in the areas of cyber security, AI or biotechnology, the case should be at least dimly related to finding some way to do so. I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible.

I am also a policy judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making. Sadly, some Negs don't do this. If only they realized how easy it would be to get my ballot by doing so!

But, after having said that, I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say. I like CPs, but, as an elderly person who has been doing this since 1968, I think they should be untopical. If not, then, we have two affirmatives arguing for the resolution and presumption shifts to the Aff. Also, having a net benefit that is more than just avoiding some stock DA is a plus. That's because if you lose the DA, then, whoosh! Your NB is gone, too. Feel free to run a NB w/in the CP and a DA outside of it.

If you want to run a K, feel free to do so, but, since most of them are non-unique, have no link to the Aff, no threshold and don't provide, in most instances, a viable policy option to the Aff, it's pretty easy for the Aff to beat a K. I have voted for Ks before, but, generally, only when the Aff failed to win the argument. The more you link the K directly to the case and the more explanatory your alt is, the more persuasive your K will be. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND AN L3 BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated. Poor refutation organization - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself.

In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. COVID wrecked my hearing – I have tinnitus, so the louder you speak (especially if it’s an online tournament) the better.

I am newbie to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

My focus will be more on evidence, reasoning, logic, substances of the presentation or argument etc. and less about physical traits such as loudness, speed, body language, etc.

My email is mingtianni@gmail.com. Please send the doc trails. It helps me evaluate better. Thank you.

Disclaimer: I can only argue with what is presented to me in round. Ultimately, if you want to run something, who am I to stop you? I'm flexible enough to deal with it.

TIME YOURSELVES!

TLDR: Speed fine. K's n stuff fine. Do what you want.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Never had a problem outside of policy rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

History:

I did LD the most when I was actively debating, but have experience with most other forms of debating and have actively judged for Pufo and Pol (Though still pref LD). I debated a wide range of arguments, from stock to progressive. I have a particular love for K's, especially so when they are accessible by everyone in round, and understood particularly well by the Debater running them.

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. If you say you're only going to take two minutes of prep, end up taking an extra 30 seconds and try to pass it off as only two minutes... no... just no. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is less confrontational than CX and much more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX. Flex prep is Not binding as far as tricky questions go, however, if a debater willfully misrepresents their argument, I'm either slashing speaks or treating just that misrepresentation as binding, depending on how much that misrepresentation shifts the round. IE. If it becomes a centerpiece for the debate, it's binding. If it's just a side argument... speaks. Try not to do it.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuance difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

K's function as their own FW. They don't necessarily need a super comprehensive FW with a K, the ALT and Link's are FW on their own. If those aren't sufficient, you can run a bit of FW up top or something, especially if your Alt is Drop the Debater... that isn't really a FW sufficient Alternative and you're going to need some work to set that up. Honestly, I have a higher threshold for Drop the debater args with no intrinsic justification then I do a more progressive mindset alt. You have to disclose an alternative for your K's when you read them, no more hidden drop the debater alt. I weigh the Alt as part of the K's FW. I think it's also good form for accessibility. If you don't disclose an Alt, I'm going to default it to Drop the Debater, and hope you provide justifications in the next speech and probably drop speaks a point or two.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth,knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself.

Not really a whole lot to say here, just debate it.

I'm fine with Speed and progressive argumentation.

That all being said, I can only vote for what is offered to me in round, and am pretty flexible with what the debaters want to argue.

I'm new to judging, so please be slow when articulating your arguments.

If you have something important for me to write down or circle on the flow, please say that during your speech.

I am new to judging and my hearing is, at times, a little bad. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in front of me. I can't stress enough that clearly articulating good arguments will be better than rapid fire of many arguments.

he/him

I am a parent judge

add me to the chain: twang.twang@gmail.com

background: I'm a local parent interested in recent political events. I enjoy debates that have topical and recent evidence.

I strongly suggest everyone to be SLOW. If I cannot understand your main point I will not flow it. I am a new judge and I will vote for you if you can make me understand thoroughly and clearly the merits of your arguments in opposition to other peoples. Make me understand what are you talking about, the most clear explanations win the debate.

I would like for you to state your plan first and declare it as such, and then go through your advantages & solvency.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.