No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

I am a parent judge.

Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If used, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words, I will not be able to understand your claim.

Emphasize your important contentions/points.

Use the best of your knowledge, and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.

I do not prefer spreading. Deliver an organized and clear speech.

I will not impose my personal beliefs, and/or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. Impact calculus would be very helpful.

Do include me in any email chain - karthikakrishnna@gmail.com

All the best.

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!

I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.

Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.

If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.

In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).

Parent judge with a couple of years of judging experience.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact but you should error on the side of over-explaining things if you’re concerned I won’t pick up on something.

I determine speaker points based on clarity, creativity, research quality, rebuttal explanation, and organization.

Hello,

My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.

I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.

I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 9/20/2022

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

I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer slow and clear speaking in debate -- If I can't understand what you're saying, I might miss a key point in your argument, so please enunciate and emphasize the points you want me to take away! I believe that all of the techniques related to speech (vocal inflection, facial expression, and emotion) are a fundamental part of debate and should be utilized. Be assertive but still respectful of your opponents! And have fun!

LD: I like to see strong engagement with the value/criterion framework and how it influences the rest of the round. In general, I vote across the flowing, meaning that points not engaged with will become voters. I can handle speed but would prefer to not judge a round that is spread entirely. Finally, I prefer arguments with clear logical chains. I also believe that debate should be conducted with a clear ethical code and that competitors should be thoughtful about the points that they present in rounds, especially when making judgements about a specific group of individuals.

Please don't spread :) I am a very lay judge.

Parli: Please sign-post when you are moving through the flow. No speed above 7/10. Weigh!!

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

My paradigm is a well-rounded big picture: I am not a nit-pick type of judge but an all-inclusive big picture judge. I am not interested in how fast or slow a debater speaks. I want to understand every word and know where I am being led in the thought-process and why. I am partial to layman terms and intelligent discussion as opposed to flowery speech. I am an advocate of debaters who are authentic to themselves and their voices so they are performing at optimum.

My introduction into speech and debate started in grade school with public speaking and parliamentary procedure via participation in 4-H, 1st grade-12th grade. In this capacity we were required to present demonstrations, speeches, and participate in parliamentary procedure. In high school I joined the formal speech and debate teams as well as quiz bowl participation which added to my base of learning.

A University of Kansas (Jayhawks) journalism major, I was trained in the art of listening, critical thinking, asking questions, and forming quick written and verbal response.

I was given the opportunity to work with Nova 42 in Pasadena, California upon the academy's inception. I worked as an assistant coach and extended my teaching to Broadway Academy in Walnut, CA where I taught speech, debate, and critical thinking. I am also a certified substitute teacher in the state of California and have been judging the CA and national debate circuits since it went predominantly online.

I'm highly aware of debate framework, flow charts, Lincoln Douglass, Congress, and the various forms of speech from improv to extemporaneous, dramatic, persuasive, duets, solo, and everything in between.

pronouns : she/her/any, email: isabellasgandara@gmail.com (i usually prefer fileshare in NSDA Campus when possible)

I debated for 4 years in CX, primarily as a policymaker debater with a specific focus on structural violence. If no other frameworks are given during the round, I will default to this paradigm: affirmative wins if they prove the aff world is better than the neg's, and the opposite for negative.

I highly prefer evaluating frameworks given by the debaters in rounds, however, and want to be as close to tabula rasa as possible in that respect. Laying out a logical and convincing reason to vote aff or neg, and then linking your case impacts/method/etc to that is an important part of your rebuttals, so please do as much work for your judge in that respect.

Quick Notes --

** I won't accept dehumanizing or hateful rhetoric, including racism, transphobia, sexism, ableism, or anything else discriminatory. Saying something blatantly hateful will lead to you being downvoted. Consistent misgendering of your opponent after multiple corrections falls under this same rule.

I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. Insulting your opponent's intelligence/knowledge/abilities will cause me to drop speaks.

T --

I really liked T when I was in debate and I think good debates where the interpretation or counterinterpretation provides a meaningful definition of the topic are great. Therefore, I really like T *when it is used purposefully*. Between competing intepretations, standards are the most important. Feel free to get creative here and explain why I should prefer your interpretation and how that fits into debate as a whole- it's an opportunity to advance a certain model of debate, and your interpretation along with standards and voters can help support it.

If your definition is fairly arbitrary (i.e. "substantially"), I would likely feel comfortable voting on reasonability.

DAs --

Naturally I am fine with DAs and they can be really useful in any negative strategy. A major issue I see is that link chains, especially in ultra-generic 1NC shells, are sometimes really shoddy and rely on a lot of jumps in logic to be true. The more specific your evidence is to the link chain (i.e. impact threshold, timeframe), the better your DA will be able to withstand attacks. Link specificity always > generic links.

CPs --

Unless you argue otherwise, I will default to the aff if the CP provides no clear net benefit. I really love CPs, and I love when they are used in combination with DAs. There is a lot of potential for you to make links to DAs to the plan, the perm, or even the CP, especially apart from impact debate.

On perm debate, make sure the perm is actually clear instead of just saying perm do both. Perm debates are really great when either side can provide evidence about what it would look like.

Ks / K Affs --

I was never much of a K debater in high school, but I have since gotten familiar with some literature. Probably not the best idea to run high-level Ks in front of me, especially if you don't want to explain the basic terminology.

Also, be clear about the impact of your K, and what the alt does. It's up to either side how to weigh the impacts, but it gets messy when one side is talking about fiat and the other is talking about impacts in round. Like I said, I am a policymaker by default, so be sure to give me an ROB to explain how and why I should vote outside of that paradigm.

I like Ks the best when they provide a meaningful and specific criticism of the affirmative/resolution, and can elaborate what that means for the debate. You don't always have to win alt solvency to win the K flow.

When running a K be sure to explain the method, especially if you are going for an in-round/a priori method.

K affs are cool when they provide a meaningful critique of the resolution and interact with framework in a way that is consistent with the thesis. I think K affs are most vulnerable to the fairness/education voters on FW, so you will need to have good answers to this when running a K aff.

Framework + Theory --

Like with T, I love FW and T because they let you lay out what you think debate should be and why. You can tell me how to prioritize arguments, which ones to reject, or why to vote down the other team. There is a lot of freedom here so feel free to put them out there, as long as you can argue against your opponents and prove what impact it has and why (theory should probably be run if your opponent has already been abusive or if the possibility of abuse is particularly high).

I am generally tech > truth so if your opponents bring up an argument about procedure that doesn't favor you, make sure to answer it, and tell me why I should reject it.

Case --

I think case arguments can go largely ignored in policy-centric rounds, except for impact calc + framing. I love when case issues are included in the debate, because it creates a mix of offense and defense that I much prefer to straight offense. Solvency is a big thing for me; often, it's hard to decide on alone, but it can really go a long way to helping your case.

Misc.

I don't really like conditional negs where the arguments are all over the place. I also don't like when the 1NC has about 7 off case only for most of them to be dropped by the 2NR because the neg is going for whatever their opponent drops. These often overlap, so please make sure your negative case is clear, substantive, and (mostly) cohesive. I am not against dropping arguments, and I'm never going to automatically vote you down for doing that, but it is usually obvious when it is a core part of your neg strat, and I will probably rule that it's unfair if it's brought up.

I'm going to vote, to the best of my ability, solely on what is presented to me in the 2AR and 2NR. I will flow the whole round and try to include constructive feedback from the whole debate, and I will base my speaker points/rankings off the debate as a whole, too. But I cannot vote on an argument that was extended into the 2AC and never brought up again.

-- Under this same vein, if you tell me to drop your opponent's argument because they didn't extend something/they didn't bring it up in the rebuttal, I'll probably do just that.

-- Also, please extend your evidence into as many speeches as you can. It makes the debate a lot messier if cards only pop up every other speech, and I will usually defer to the team that points out that your evidence wasn't extended in the speech before.

Speed is mostly fine, I'll follow along and I want evidence to read along to what you have. I won't intervene into the evidence unless the debate comes down to a single card that has been contested without good response from either side.

I love clash, and I love when debaters tell me why to prefer their card on an issue. I don't need an appeal to authority, I usually prefer you to look at the warrants of evidence or the link chain of an argument and tell me why you think their evidence shouldn't be considered, and why yours should.

I am a parent judge.

I will drop you if you spread or run theory/k's. I cannot evaluate circuit LD so it is against your strategic interest do debate as such in front of me.

Speak as clearly as possible. If I don't understand your arguments I can't vote for you.

Please signpost so I can flow your arguments properly. I don't evaluate cross so make sure to bring any important arguments up in your speech.

Be respectful and enjoy the debate!

I have previously judged LD, Policy, PF, and Parli. Please be thorough with your arguments and have clear impacts. Speaker points will be docked for overly aggressive or hostile behavior. Please be respectful to one an another and follow through with the debate in a mature and respectful manner. Finally, maintain a clear order while addressing all arguments. Refrain from jumping around, and instead, provide clear flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful and appreciated.

I will not be interrupting or talking during the debate, however would closely monitor the timings of the debate sessions. I will not be providing any feedback post debate.

Please keep time for yourselves. Please speak loudly and slowly, I would rather you have fewer contentions and I be able to understand you then have a bunch of contentions that force you to speak quickly. I do take notes.

I am a lay judge, I do not flow, but I do take notes

no spreading, please talk slow

I am not familiar with theory and kritiks. I will do my best judging the round, but I may not be able to follow if you run theory or kritiks.

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.

Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,

I am a parent judge.

I appreciate good sign posting, as it's a proxy for a clearly thought-out argument. I'd like to be able to walk away and remember the 2 or 3 major points on which you constructed your argument. In your final round, I'd appreciate a clear statement of why you should win.

Help me out, please - no spreading, and try to avoid debate jargon. Please speak at a reasonable pace and explain any debate-specific terms in plain english. If you don’t want me flowing on the wrong side, PLEASE GIVE ME AN OFF-TIME ROAD MAP.

Please be courteous to one another, as you and your opponent are here to help each other improve.

I will do my best to give substantive, constructive feedback to help you in your future rounds.

Have fun!

---Some tips for debating before parent judges---

Speak like you're elaborating on an outline, rather than like you're reading prose. If I can make a clear outline of your major contentions, sub-points and evidence, but can't do so for your opponent, you are at a distinct advantage because I can better follow your logic.

When you state your contentions, word them as a complete sentence (subject and predicate) that promotes your side of the argument. For instance, don't say, "Poverty." Say, "prioritizing environmental protections will create more poverty," or, "Poverty will increase if we deprioritize the economy,."

Another example, instead of stating the contention as "economy," say, "prioritizing the environment will promote a healthier economy."

Speak at a reasonable pace.

leland '22 | ucla '26 (computational and systems biology major)

he/him

yes, i would like to be on the email chain: yongjindebate@gmail.com

idk if anyone reads paradigms nowadays...if you do, add me on the email chain without asking. thanks!

update for long beach:i have been meaning to leave the activity for a while now, so this will probably be the only tournament i will be judging throughout the entire year. i don't know the topic at all so when you are in front of me, i would expect you to not throw around acronyms around.

tech > truth - this should be the general philosophy of every judge but there is no such thing as tabula rasa

top-level:

1. i thank Allen Kim, Young Park, Allison Harper, Caitlin Walrath, and Ms. Northrop for molding my views and perceptions on debate and how a debate should be held. that means that a lot of my preferences of what i would like to see in a round is a collaboration and hybrid of their amazing opinions on debate. so, if you are ever confused throughout my paradigm, their paradigms should be a lot more concise and straightforward and i wouldn't blame you if you defaulted to searching theirs up.

2. debate is a discussion between the debaters, i'm only an adjudicator of the round - do you what you do best, whether you are running wipeout to agenda ptx to baudrillard, my only job is to listen and flesh a clear ballot that gives me the easiest way to vote - any arguments that you can explain THOROUGHLY is on the table and it is your job by the rebuttals to write the ballot for me

3. BUT... i will not tolerate any arguments that pertain to sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, classism, etc. i will stop a round if i need to, if i find that the debaters are uncomfortable and will cap your speaks to the lowest it can possibly be. respect needs to be earned between the debaters; but, there is a fine line between aggressive and passionate debating and ad hominem incivility

4. speed is fine and be comfortable in the round - whether you spread at 450 wpm or you go at Cal MS's speed, i'll flow whatever claims, warrants, or evidence you are communicating to me - but if i yell clear once and i can understand a drunk donkey better than i can understand your speech, i'll give up flowing :)

5. tag team CX is fine, you don't need to ask me beforehand - but if your partner is clearly speaking for you in CX, i'll make sure to tank both of your speaker points so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6. as i might have sounded passive-aggressive in some parts, i'm usually (HOPEFULLY) not too mean unless you break one or more of the stuff listed here. i wish you the best of luck in your rounds and if you have me as a judge, have fun and touch some grass after the round please

7. pre-round disclosure is good...that's a nonnegotiable

policy specific:

1. t: usfg- i put this at the top because you probably ctrl+F'ed my paradigm for this so you're welcome - these are the best debates to see or the absolute worst debates to see - i have been on both sides of these debates debating for and against framework so i welcome K v FW debates openly

- for FW debaters, i see the utility of both fairness and education/clash but i believe fairness is an internal link for education and clash FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, NOT PERSONAL ONES. in all the FW debates i've been in, 99% of explanations of fairness impacts become tautological, repetitive, and defensive by the 2NR and there are no intrinsic or external benefits to having fairness ALONE being good for debate. Additionally, my pet peeves for FW debaters are that they throw out TVAs without explaining why their TVA resolves any literature provided by the 1AC. i view TVAs as crucial for evaluating the round but without any justification for your TVA, there is an extremely high threshold of winning on it

- for K debaters, it is your job to defend why your model of debate is a better alternative to normative debate practices and impact or internal link turn the FW impacts for offense. Also, explain your counter-interpretation and why that has a net benefit to the model of this round or model of debate as a whole.

2. k affirmatives - i love them a lot and i've experimented with them throughout my high school career - while i see the value of K affirmatives and i do not auto default to "defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan" - this does NOT mean i'll understand the nuances of your aff without explanation

- it is your responsibility to:

1. explain the thesis of the 1AC

2. warrant the method/solvency of the 1AC

3. justify my relationship as a judge to the ballot and the round

4. explain the 1AC's relationship to the resolution whether that be positive or negative.

Lack of sufficient explanation of these 4 things increases my chances of voting presumption and/or FW in the debate

3. k v k debates - one of the most underrated debates to have - for K affirmative, explaining the 1AC's theory of power, perm, root cause, and comparisons between the 1AC and alt will help me understand the interaction between the 1AC and the K - for K negative, explaining the link and its relationship to the 1AC and method v method will isolate the ballot for me

4. policy affs - case debate are great to see - whether that entails impact defense, impact turns, specific case defense or offense, every reason provided to the 2NR are reasons to lower the threshold of voting aff - presumption is a thing and i do vote on it

5. cp - i'll reward teams who read specific solvency evidence pertaining to the aff's plan while it is not a necessity - but, what is a necessity though, is internal and/or external net benefits to the CP and how it competes against the aff solvency - i like to see unique and strategic counterplans whether they are abusive or not - but, the more abusive a CP becomes, the more i'll grant aff leniency to theory, i.e. international actors or private actors

6. da - i believe that link portions in a disad are extremely underrated - more and more i see disad links become generic links to the plan and the internal link story of the disad becomes really sketch. in the end, it ends up being an impact framing debate by the 2NR and 2AR

- while i highly regard top-level impact framing and turns case arguments and i'll reward a team that does one well, i do believe that a disad should have a coherent link and i/l story to decrease my threshold on it - i would rather see an impact turn round than see a 1NR mindlessly read 10 UQ wall cards on Biden's midterms

7. k- this is the area where i have interacted the most in my junior and senior year - framework and link debates are the most important to me and this is where your debates should be focused on anyway - whether you read a 2 minute o/v on your K or do line-by-line, i want to learn about how your literature is affected by the 1AC, the 1AC's politics, or the 1AC's rhetoric. And, i want to know what is my relationship to the K and how i should evaluate my ballot.

- i do not want to listen to your prewritten blocks and overviews discussing the nuances of your literature; i could've spent my time better reading comments from 40-year-old moms on Goodreads about your book than you spreading to me 8 minutes in the 2NC about it.

- if you pull lines from the 1AC text contextualizing the aff to the link, i'll heavily boost your speaks - for the alternative, i expect you to tell me if you are judge kicking it or not. if you aren't, i hope listen to a coherent story on how the alt resolves the links and examples of the alt happening either within debate or in politics

- most importantly, explain your buzzwords because it becomes so easy to see when a debater is vomiting random words because they are unfamiliar with the literature. Remember, debate is a discussion between you and the opponent, and your speaks will reflect if you make the debate inaccessible to them.

8. t - i could care less if you read 4 T shells out of your 10 offs, but your decision to go for it in the neg block and the 2NR, purely relies upon your ability to articulate: 1. the warrants of your standards 2. the impact it has in-round and out-of-round and what their plan justifies 3. the credibility of your interpretation and why the aff violates it. When it comes to competing interps and reasonability, i default to competing interps unless given instruction and explanation why reasonability outweighs competing interps.

9. theory - my general ideology on theory or any miscellaneous theory args is: go big or go home - while it defers to a round-by-round basis, i want to hear a 5-minute theory speech than a shoddily extended 45-second theory shell in the 2NR or 2AR. it is your job to justify why the opponent provides an abusive world of debate and how that led to issues in-round. i have no biases in voting for quirky theory arguments (i refuse to call them frivolous bc that's what PF and LD call them and i don't want to associate myself with them). Theory debate legitimately makes my day and i love to see a round that invests their time in one.

miscellaneous:

my speaks start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how well u speak, coordinate w ur partner, being nice to ur opponents, etc. but here are some pet peeves...

1. pet peeves:

- stealing prep (DON'T U DARE TOUCH UR COMPUTER WHEN UR PARTNER IS GOING TO THE RESTROOM)

- taking a millennia to send out the doc (marked or not)

- speaking over each other in cx

- asking "did you read 'x' card" more than once in a cx

- calling me judge instead of yongjin or you

- card clipping results in max 20 speaks - but, card clipping accusations need to be debated in-round for me to assign a loss - however, i will only assign an auto-loss if it is a bubble round because i believe that those who card clip should not be in elim rounds

- not disclosing the aff and 2nr strats pre-round unless its new

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

Be respectful and track your time. Honor your time limits.

Arguments should be delivered properly with emphasis on communication delivery. Be precise and communicate your point well.

I do like to take notes and would be doing it during the rounds.

Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that is just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart.

Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. You may a timer that I’ll be able to hear (or not), but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scribble away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so. Also, no off time roadmaps - you should be writing/speaking well enough to inform me throughout your speech of where you are and the points you're making!

I am a former HS debater (2002-2006, Morristown West in Tennessee), and I had the most success in Public Forum - although I also enjoyed Congress & LD (I don't think Parli was available on a HS level yet or I probably would have tried it, too). I didn’t get really serious about PFD until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. These accomplishments remain the highlights of my time in high school - not just because of the affirmation and recognition of my effort, but because of all the time spent and memories made with my teammates and closest friends along the way. I had tremendous passion for and gratitude toward Forensics, and I tried to embed that into my approach. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively and in an accessible manner - consider the Ancient Greek foundational communication philosophies of logos, ethos, and pathos.

My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, and you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you, always, for your hard work and boldness in showing up for yourselves and your teammates today!

I am a parent judge who has judged LD primarily for the past 2 years. I struggle with extreme circuit style speakers, so kindly slow down a little bit for me if you are a circuit style debater.

Hello!

My paradigms are pretty simple for all debate:

I have been coaching/judging/competing for the last decade, so I will always flow the round and base my decision on the flow.

Public Forum: I do not have any specific paradigms for this event. Due to the expected "lay" nature of the event, I will flow the round and base my decision there. I do believe have an established "burden" of some kind for either side helps with that decision. In addition, professionalism and curtesy can have a significant impact on my decision (especially if the debate is extremely close, and one side was rude while the other remained professional/kind).

Lincoln Douglas: The big one here is to make sure the V/VC is threaded through the entire debate. While I will again base my decision heavily on the flow, the V/VC can make or break a side. I am fine with progressive or traditional styles in LD (i.e. speeding, critical arguments, etc.)

Policy: Again, I will use the flow to make my decision, and I am fine with whatever. If abuse is being argued (via a T or K), the burden falls heavily on the presenting side to prove abuse, while the burden falls heavily on the other to respond to the presented arguments.

Above all - remember that this is for YOU! Not for me! Please do not adjust your style because of my paradigms, I truly believe I should be the one doing the adjusting because this activity isn't for me as much as it is for y'all to shine! Have fun!

Please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to understand you. Also, please define the technical words that you are using in your case. If I don't understand the words I will not be able to understand your claim.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine.

Signposting is preferred.

I will be taking notes during your speeches.

Please be courteous to your opponent.

Hi,

I am a first-time parent judge. I would like you to speak clearly and not too fast. Please be cordial and respectful to your opponent. I will be judging based on whoever best articulates their arguments and supports them with evidence. Have fun. Looking forward to meeting you.

I am a lay judge with no previous debate experience. Please speak slowly and clearly; I will try my best to evaluate both sides of the argument in order to assess the round...but I cannot judge what I cannot understand.

Hello speakers, my name is Dimple. My experience with speech/debate began in 2020. I have remained active in the community as a speech and debate judge since then.

I'd like to share my judging style. I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible, if not please define the terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are spreading, that means I am not writing it down.

I do not like speaker's talking over each other during cross-examination. Please be respectful to your opponent. The winner of the round will be the speaker who made the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest. Also, please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.

Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue. All in all, I am excited to meet you all. I study delivery, as critical thinking is necessary throughout the round. Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

*Varsity Speaks I changed my paradigm to include this last season mid-tournament and I'm keeping it this season. Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/basic T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a handful of younger varsity teams. She/her.

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

As a result, frontline whatever you want to go for in summary in second rebuttal - first summaries, call it out if not.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. I don't believe in the trend of judges I've seen that get upset at the team asking for cards rather than the team that can't produce the cards they just read. It's your stuff, you either have it or don't.

If it's in final focus, it better be in summary.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.

Messy debates make me sad. I think cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating it. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF just fine, but if it's anything that resembles spreading in another event, I'm not your best bet.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.

Please be slow and clear.

I look for good flow, argumentation.

I have judged LD many times. I would like the debaters to speak in a moderate speed and speak clearly. When deciding the winner, I choose the debater who has strong arguments, does not drop any important arguments, and clearly explains why their arguments are important.

I am a parent judge. Just because you share a speech doc does not mean I will be able to fully understand your contentions or the weight of your arguments if you spread at an incomprehensible rate. Spread at your own risk.

Weight out contentions, be respectful, etc. Engage in a good, substantive round with argumentative clash.

Experience:

5 years LD, 3 years PF - BOHS and Honor '19, Berkeley '22

Important Points (PF/LD):

Please always make sure to address framework clash, weigh args, and do impact calculus - but make sure to link your impacts back to FW.

Do not spread (especially in online rounds). I will tolerate fast debate, but articulation is key - if you're trying to spread and you're slurring, I will stop flowing. Debate is about articulating and presenting arguments against your opponent with myself as the adjudicator, and if I don't understand what you're saying, then it will not help anyone.

Don't read new arguments in speeches you shouldn't be (I take point of order very seriously).

I'm fine with theory, but I usually won't vote on theoretical abuse unless either (1) your opponent drops the shell, (2) fails to provide counter-interp/standards, or (3) doesn't prove how your interp is bad for debate.

Flex/running prep is fine. I do not flow CX.

Any other questions, ask before round. Otherwise, have fun and always be respectful to each other. :)

I am a parent judge. I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.comif you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

As a parent judge for the LD tournament, I would like the participants to be respectful, and behave in a cordial manner. This means not interrupting or talking over your opponent, along with using a strong, commanding voice. I value the research of the topic and evidence, as well as facts to support your arguments, however I want the participants to use credible sources for gathering information.

I would like participants to center their arguments around the value and define the value criterion. Arguments should be well organized and rebuttal should be well constructed. Lastly, I want the participants to be mindful of the time provided.

As a parent judge for LD tournament I would like to see a well researched and concise argument for your case. Quoting relevant facts, statistics to supporting your argument and choosing a unique angle to make your speech stand out is important to me.

Confident delivery and respectful dialogue with your opponent carries weight in choice of the winner of the round,

Vamsi Velidandla Paradigm

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point, not just
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread.

- Be polite.

-Track your own time.

- I like quick off-time road maps.

- For those debaters who have Nuclear War as an argument - I hope you have evidence to support it.

Good luck!

I debated parli for around two years for Los Altos. I'm at ucla now.

Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.

Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.

Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :) Don't run Ks. I don't know them.

Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Don't have your camera on and laugh/make faces during speeches; it's kind of distracting and a lil rude. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points.

treat me like a lay judge

TLDR: Tech over truth. Go as fast as you want, but be clear. Tell me how to weigh. Extensions should include the original warrant. I'm good for LARP & policy arguments, I can evaluate K debate, and I am probably not your pick for a performance/non-T aff. Don't be rude to your opponent.

Cheat sheet:
LARP: 1-2
Theory: 1-2
Phil: 1
K: 3
Other: 3-5

I'd like to be part of the email chain, if there is one: lindseywilliams411@gmail.com

GEN: I competed on the circuit for 4 years and went to the TOC in LD. I currently coach for Harker. I'm most comfortable with policy-style arguments and LARP fare, along with theory.

-I default to an offense-defense paradigm. This is the only way I've found to judge debates that both makes sense and is fair, so if you don't want me to use it, you'll have to explain how else I should approach the round.

-True evidence ethics claims are not theory arguments. If you genuinely believe that your opponent has committed an evidence ethics violation, you need to tell me in those terms. The debate will end, the claim will be evaluated, and if there are tournament procedures for EE disputes, I'll initiate them.

-Disclosure is good and should be encouraged. I debated for a small school. I attended multiple tournaments without teammates or a coach. I could talk at length about why this is the best practice for small schools and lone wolf debaters. (Also, disclosure theory is boring, as are debates that come down to it.)

LARP: This was most of my circuit repertoire. I'm extremely comfortable judging these debates. Notes:

-The perm is a test of competition, not a change in advocacy. If you're going to kick something, it should be clean (concede defense on the link).

-Not going for something is not the same as kicking it.

T: I like a good T interp. As with all theory, the abuse story should be tailored to the shell and the violation; hurling around generic blocks about limits and ground will always be less compelling than a cohesive explanation of how your interp specifically encourages substantive debate. Notes:

-I tend to believe that topicality is a true argument. Do with that what you will.

-Someday, in a better place, in a better time, I dream of a world where a debater correctly explains genericity.

Theory: I have a decently low threshold for theory, with the exception of obviously frivolous stuff (e.g. highlighting theory, font theory, etc. — but don't stress too much about what "frivolous" means here, trust your gut). Notes:

-I soft default to competing interps > reasonability, no RVIs > RVIs, and fairness > education. By "default" I mean that in a circumstance where neither debater says any of these words, this is where I fall. It's not a hard preference.

-I won't vote on spikes where the warrant only appears in the last speech. The abuse story has to be delineated in the actual shell.

-I'm a pretty hard sell on RVIs. For one thing, I think going for them is usually a bad strategic move; I'm also disposed against them on theoretical grounds. Still, I'll hear the argument.

-Specific articulations of the nature of the abuse strengthen the shell. The best carded standards in the world won't really help if you can't point to who or what component of debate is being injured by the violation.

-I will not vote on 2AR theory unless there is something truly reprehensible in the 2NR. To me, this is the same thing as judge intervention, and my threshold for it is accordingly high.

K: I've encountered most standard lit on the circuit. I appreciate a K that's well-written and well-researched, and not just the same literature being recut and recycled for the umpteenth time. Notes:

-I need a clear explanation of the alt. I have to know where the solvency is coming from, and to what extent it's working.

-Mindset shift alts probably aren't abusive so much as they make for an uphill solvency debate.

-The K can be leveled against theory, but I default to theory > K unless the debater tells me otherwise. This is another soft default.

Tricks: no

Performance/kritikal affs: Fine, but please give me explicit instructions on how you want me to weigh it in the round. I have a LARP brain and I think in terms of offense/defense, so telling me how your interpretive framework can fit into that paradigm will make both of our lives easier.

Speaks: I average around a 28.5 for any given tournament, and I go up or down from there. I tend to give points for good strategy and smart decision-making in the late speeches. I don't disclose speaks.

If you have any questions, shoot me an email or approach me before the round.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly.

I appreciate your being respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Good luck!

Hi, if you can, please do not speak very fast. Thank you

Add me to the chain, (zeeht@duq.edu), or use SpeechDrop.

General information:

1. Background: Three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (UT 22'), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L) law student at Duq Kline Schol of Law (Duq Law 26').

2. At a high level: I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant. The fewer implicit assumptions I have to make, the better odds you have of winning.

3. My position on "unconventional cases": Arguments are arguments ... performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

Procedurals:

1. Extending arguments: I will not extend a conceded argument for you if you do not extend and explain its importance in the latter part of the debate. I will presume you do not want that particular argument evaluated.

2. New arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the debater but I will disregard the argument. I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded

3. When the timer goes off: I stop listening, flowing, and evaluating any argument made the moment the timer goes off.

4. Typing during cross-examination: If you see me typing during cross-examination I am probably tidying up my flow or typing out feedback.

Specific Arguments

1. Topicality, theory, and abuse: Ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. An a prior issue for me is you actually have to prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.

2. Kritiks: I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of the framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good in answering the K, epistemology first in running the K, or anything in between. I also find I place more emphasis than some judges on "why my ballot matters", perhaps I've enjoyed the normativity K too much, but, I digress.

3. Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense. Like T however, I need you to prove abuse.

4. DAs/CPs: I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a neg ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a great strategy.

LD & PF - my take on speed:

1. LD Speed: The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell.

2. PF Speed: PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.