Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

Debate:

I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.

IE:

Limited Prep:

Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.

Everything Else

If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.

speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.

Hello!

I'm a first time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid debate jargon, please warrant and explain everything well.

Have fun debating!

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Please be polite when debating and no spreading! 

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Please talk at a clear pace. Traditional debate only.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

-You have to weigh it has to be comparative and I prefer specific warrants based on in-round argument vs general ideas on how two impacts interact in a vacuum

-I wont accept new weighing in first final unless no other weighing is done before and 2nd can respond but can't read their own weighing

-in 2nd rebuttal two things you have to frontline and dont read disads if theres a legitimate violation/issue I'll evaluate a new off but I don't recommend doing it on a ticky-tack violation

-Im fine with progressive arguments but you cant kick it you can collapse on specific warrants but any argument you read should make it to final and i wont evaluate no RVIs or must read competing interps

-im fine with any speed in the front half of the round but in the back half the faster you go the more I'll miss or not get which makes it hard to vote for you so make a judgement call

-warrants and contextualization are more important in the back half than the front half that doesn't mean you can make up new warrants in the back half it just means dont forget if your argument doesnt make sense I wont vote for it because I dont know what Im voting for

-Ill give block 30s if I can so if you dont get a 30 its because of your behavior in the round so I would call on you to reflect a little on what may have happened in the round to warrant it

I am a parent/judge. I value fairness and equity, and in the case of competitive debate, good sportspersonship.

I do WSD but have a lot of experience in all the other debate events.

Not a huge fan of spreading but if you are going to AT LEAST make your key arguments clear to me.

I prefer when people can keep their own time but if I need to do time signals my go-to is 3 down fist at grace for speech events and then for debate events, I give 15 seconds before I ask you to wrap it up.

I do not tolerate people giggling at their opponents while spectating however if you make banter in the round that's fine just be respectful.

Please do not scream at me!! I promise my ears work fine. And no excessive knocking on tables and clapping during a speech, it's unnecessary.

Make the round easy for me, tell me why to vote for you instead of letting me decide between you and your opp.

I'll give critiques after the round if you ask but that does not mean I'll disclose the round.

email: jake_mccathran@northlandchristian.org

hi i'm jake (he/him) and i'm a second year debater at northland christian school who does mainly ld. contact me before round if you have any questions

LD:

basically just debate how you want, i will evaluate any arguments with warrants. i'm more of a tech over truth judge, but please extend your arguments, even if your opponent drops them, or i will not flow them. weigh your offense, i don't care how many arguments you're winning in the round, it means nothing to me if you don't weigh. in terms of framework, explain why you winning framework matters,if it means the opponent has no offense, explain to me why. too many times i see debates over framework that have no impact on the round whatsoever. i have my progressive related paradigm at the bottom but before you even consider it, please make sure your opponent is ok with it,if you spread against someone who is inexperienced, your speaks will be tanked. also if you're gonna spread, add me to the email chain.

things i like:

• collapsing to one contention
• good weighing
• highlighting your cards in light blue
• being respectful to your opponent
• clear voters at the end of rebuttals

things i don't like:

• being unnecessarily rude
• stealing prep
• talking too quiet or just being unclear
• new responses in the 2nr or 2ar (for pf, no new args in the final focus)
• being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. (pls just use common sense)

for speaks, i'll usually give them based off good speaking, being polite, and having good strategy such as strategically collapsing, good extensions, and good weighing. another good way you can get speaks from me is making the round funny. seriously if you just take 5 seconds out of your speech to make a joke, i laugh at a lot of things and you can definitely get a boost by making the round entertaining. a few good ways to get your speaks tanked include clipping cards, stealing prep, being totally unclear, and being disrespectful to your opponent.

for y'all progressive folks:

larp is very cool and probably what i'm most comfortable with judging as that is what i have ran for almost all my rounds. plans, DAs, CPs, all that stuff i'm fine with but without weighing, i'm a lost man. pls weigh. impact turns im very much fine with. counterplans i love, especially abusive counterplans, but u better be ready for a theory debate if it's too abusive.

theory is also very cool and i couldn't care less how stupid your shell is, just make sure u have actual warrants in your standards. default to DTD, competing interps, and no RVIs. 1ar theory is cool but im open to that debate.

Ks are cool when i know what's going on, i really only know cap ks, set col, afropes, and anything else NEEDS explanation. i think i lot of people miss it when people say your Ks needs explanation because i still never see good explanations in round. do not assume i know your K. also make sure your alt is clear in what it does.

for phil, i love kant and util, and can judge rawls, structural violence, and hobbes, but also explain these!!! slow down on analytics, i like tjfs, and meta ethics are cool and probably needed.

tricks are definitely a thing, they can be funny and smart if executed correctly, but i will not vote on it if it doesn't have a warrant. also be accessible when running this sort of stuff such as novices because i would really hate to vote off a one line ivi that went conceded by someone and it's like their second tournament. just be mindful about that or speaks go downnnnn.

other debate events

my ld paradigm cross applies for the most part, but for events such as pf, worlds, etc, please don't spread or run crazy progressive positions. i also don't know the topics, so treat me as a pretty lay judge.

IEs

i don't do IEs very much, but i judge based off how well you present yourself, your clarity, and the content of your speech, such as having good sources and analysis. also, make it entertaining. a lot of speeches just talk about politics and get boring fast, so throw in some jokes and i'll be more likely to rank you higher.

moska.mehri74@gmail.com

Spreading

Debate is meant to be educational, everyone can read. I want your case to speak to me and if I can't flow it and if your opponent doesn't understand, it's not our fault :)

Outweigh/voters

Be clear on where you want me to vote, that's what you will see on the ballot

I don't normally disclose, but don't argue with me over it if you want me to disclose.

If you include anything related to the food you get +.5 speaker points (if not, it's cool)

Util/extinction: Doesn't outweigh

SPEECH

This goes for Original Oratory, Extemp, Improv, and many more:

-ARTICULATE

• Speak Clear
• Follow the rules for your event

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have done some CX and married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

Pronouns: she/her | Email: alicetlnguyen@gmail.com

Currently a JV Policy debater for the University of Houston.

CX: Run the arguments you like and do it well. Tech > truth but if something is blatantly wrong, then the threshold to take it down is very low. I like voters and impact comparison. Case debate is underrated and people should do more of it.

LD: Framework sets the foundation for the entire round, and I'd like for it to be applied throughout the whole debate. If one debater persuades me that their framework is better, I'll use that to evaluate the round; if neither do, then I'll default to who was argumentatively more persuasive. It's important in this type of debate that you are mindful of the things you say and the implications they may have, both inside and outside the round.

Speech: Always welcome to new perspectives and fun takes on things. Though, it goes without saying that a controversial opinion should never supersede basic respect for others. Really love in-depth research and exploration of different perspectives, but make sure that counterarguments don't detract or distract from the position you take in the speech.

High speaks for all events if you're entertaining.

Parent judge.

DEMOND ROBERTSON

Columbia University in the City of New York, MFA, Film

Carnegie Mellon University, BFA, Theater Arts

DEBATE EXPERIENCE

Winning high-school L-D Debater

3rd Place TFA State: Original Oratory

NSDA Semi-Finalist: 8th in Original Oratory

JUDGING PARADIGM or... What I'm looking for

I look for the best case and most winning arguments.

How you present your case is up to you. I evaluate what is spoken during the debate. I don't fill in blanks if there's a failure to shore up a point of contention.

I'm primarily a Flow Judge, but I do appreciate and expect adherence to the standard practices of traditional L-D Debate.

Haven't seen this a lot, but I don't go for spreading in values debate. I will ask you to stop or repeat something ONCE only. It's your responsibility to make sure you can be heard and understood.

Emotion is good and useful in debate, but don't rely to heavily upon it. If you're unprepared or have a weak case and think you can cover by over-emoting, spreading/reading fast...you're wrong.

I prefer legible, hard-copies of all evidence and proof of sources properly organized and readily available in case of questions, challenges or contestation of validity.

Bring the passion. Regardless of your feelings about the resolution/topic or even the strength of your case, argue with conviction.

EVERTHING ELSE...

Establish house-keeping things like tracking prep time before the debate starts so as not to lose momentum during the debate.

I have no hard and fast rules outside of the ballot criterion as to how I award Speaker Points.

I will, on occasion, personally review and read evidence and cited sources after a debate.

I do not provide verbal critiques post debate. If you have questions or need clarification about what's on the ballot I am open to limited discussions with your coach.

Individual events: in exemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

LD - I would like to see a structured framework because I will flow both cases. I like to see a strong value that ties into your criterion, and I also care a lot about the resolution. I want you to explain to me why I should care and why everything you just said for the last 45 minutes makes sense. I do not like spreading. I want to be able to understand every single part of your case.

Poetry, prose - I care a lot about tone, presentation, eye contact, and overall performance. I want to be able to understand the piece through you.

Director of Debate: Dulles High School (2022 - Present)

Formerly: Westside High School (2017 - 2022), Magnolia High School (2016 - 2017)

Every round I judge: esdebate93 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in Policy: dulles.policy.db8 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in LD: dulles.ld.db8 [at] the google mail service

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email. If you have any questions, just ask.

Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.

1. Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. Wheaton's law is always in effect.

2. Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position and give observers time to leave. Read something else if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects.

3. Debate tournaments are long, difficult, and overstimulating for everyone involved, often due to factors beyond your control. That said, debaters regularly behave in ways contribute to delays and stress. Do your best not to do that. To elaborate: Get to round on time, have the email chain ready to go, clean up after yourself, and don't be obnoxiously loud and in the way of others.

4. Do not clip cards (cutting them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your tag; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or strategizing with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.

5. Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.

Decision Making

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.

I am attentive to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.

Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a subjective, holistic evaluation of your performance. Will not disclose speaks.

Important Preferences

1. This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.

2. The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.

3. I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop. If I can't understand or flow it, it won't factor into my decision.

4. Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to parse them for you.

5. Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment; however, if your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.

6. Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.

7. Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.

8. Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility, provided that the focus is judge instruction or impact comparison. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.

9. Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.

10. Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Debate is for debaters, so do your thing, do it well, and have fun.

Affs

You should have a clearly articulated relationship to the current topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.

Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.

Neg Case Debating

More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest theoretical assumptions, claims of solvency, and causal claims. If the negative answers to the case are only cross applications from other sheets (I'm looking at you K debaters), I will be annoyed.

Framework

Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.

I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models in most instances; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.

Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Kritiks

I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K, as these arguments are often counterintuitive. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about. If you're not winning your thesis, it is unlikely I will think that you are winning anything else on the K page absent really good arguments to the contrary.

Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote from the aff, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.

Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.

Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.

The pre/post fiat distinction people try to draw is silly. Talk about your scholarship/research practices, their impacts, and weigh.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not your aff. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Disadvantages and Counterplans

Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to call for cards, as these quickly turn into card wars, and I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan. Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides.

Condo is good. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe otherwise. Aff gets "unlimited" prep, permutations, and intrinsicness tests to balance against neg flex.

Counterplans v K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works.

LD Specific Stuff

Everything above applies to LD. You should attempt to actually resolve arguments for me. Slow down on analytics, please.

Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.

I can't believe that I am giving this note to people outside a Debate 1 class, but plan texts must have actors.

Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.

Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things. I think the distinction matters.

I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.

I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.

IVIs are K links that function independently of the thesis being true because they also have procedural implications (ie use of exclusionary language). Anything else is just a lazy theory shell.

If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Tech>Truth. This still entails you give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.

Please speak clear and at a medium pace. Participants to manage the clock.

Looks for clarity in arguements, promptness in rebuttals, logical prgression of thoughts while talking and in responses, and knowledge/ understanding on the subject matter.

Results and feedbacks will be posted in Tabroom.