Columbia University Invitational ONLINE
2023 — NSDA Campus, NY/US
Varsity LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Talk slow, don’t use jargon, keep it simple and focus on conveying your arguments. Try to talk to me as much as you can, act as if you're teaching me about the subject, don't merely read your case/flow. No need to send me any documents. I don't respect arguments that catastrophize or claim that everyone will die unless you have very strong reasoning and evidence, all of which is articulated.
Although I have judged some debates and speeches, I would say I'm a lay judge. I look at both substance and style in scoring performances. I attach a lot of importance to the internal coherence of your arguments as well as how they are delivered.
I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and concise.
school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate
in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance
my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)
I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)
speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol
impact your arguments (duhh)
Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...
counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case
dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios
k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...
preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...
framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)
short & sweet
#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)
Debate is a game; play to win. I'll listen to anything, but I'm partial to humans and other animals having rights and death and suffering being bad. Y'all have to weigh your impacts and actually do the arguing, though. Clash is key. Speed is fine, slow down for your tags. If you say something egregious I'll assume Hanlon's Razor and we'll talk.
Happy to answer any questions you have before the round.
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello! I'm Stuart Beal.
First, a bit on my debate background. I did four years of pretty traditional traditional high school policy debate (competed almost exclusively on the UIL circuit in Texas). Now, I compete in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate for Columbia University in New York City. (Most of the following information is related to policy debate, but I feel that my judging philosophy is better communicated through a more specific discussion of policy debate issues than it would be if I tried to generalize my philosophy to styles of debate I'm less familiar with.)
I've judged more kritiks than I've ever encountered myself in round, so when it comes to those types of arguments, I am slightly unfamiliar, but not in the slightest opposed to hearing them. Honestly, at times I think the fact that I have less exposure to k debate makes a lot of k arguments more convincing to me. Other than that, I will also say that I have less experience with super technical CP debate. If things get intense technique wise, the team that's able to more effectively explain to me what's going on is probably going to be the team that will win the argument.
Past all that, I have a very open judging philosophy in that I will value the arguments that you tell me to value. Even widely held assumptions like T/framework taking first priority because they're procedural arguments need to be communicated to me. If aff turns T and explains why topical AFFs are bad and neg doesn't respond, T will become an aff advantage. I will never make a team win because of some sort of base assumption about how policy debate works that I personally hold.
I make decisions based on world comparison, based on which world, aff or neg, is a better one. I'll do this comparison with the impacts and weighing communicated to me by both teams and I will only intervene to weigh arguments myself if there is absolutely no other way for me to evaluate the round.
In terms of the argument preferences I do hold, I like fun T arguments and sometimes get annoyed by CPs.
No onto speaking points. I will flow every speech in the round and would like to be able to flow without having to check the speech doc for tags and authors. Highest speaker points will be given to the speaker that forces me to check the speech doc the least amount of times. So, signposting really well and speaking clearly on tags and authors is the easiest way to receive high speaks from me. Additionally, passionate speaking and intentional/convincing delivery will be rewarded.
I will dock speaker points for unwarranted attitude. I'm totally fine with things getting a little petty and heated, but there's a line and crossing it will result in docked speaks. Also, in addition to being too prickly to the other team, if I catch any disparaging comments being made from one partner to the other, speaks will be docked.
Additionally, and this should be obvious, any explicitly harmful language used whether it be sexist, racist, ableist, queerphobic etc. will result in speaks being docked and tournament officials being contacted.
- Policy @ Montgomery Bell Academy: 2018-2020
- APDA @ Columbia University: 2021-Present
- Always (always) add me to the email chain!
- I'm cool with spreading if you're debating in a format that spreads. I've debated policy. I reserve the right to say "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying, though—and to dock speaks if I have to do it more than once.
- Have fun with the debate! Debate is a game—an educational game, but a game nonetheless. I'm not going to decide rounds on "fun" (as some K debaters would have me do), but do remember that this is something that's meant to be enjoyable for all of us.
- Signpost during speeches. Throw in an "and" between cards. If you're moving on to a new topic, make it known. Messy flows mean I'll probably end up overlooking something you don't want me to overlook.
- Framework is everything. Your job is to give me something through which I should evaluate the round. In the absence of any really compelling argumentation (absolutely the worst case scenario) I'm going to fall back on framework.
- In any format, I'm cool with most args. Explain it well enough and I'll weigh it.
- BUT I'm iffy on tech > truth. If an argument just doesn't make sense—even if you have cards—it's getting weighed after everything else.
- (If you're in a format that uses cards): use your cards! Refer back to them, cite specific lines later, etc.; the more you engage with and explain your evidence, the more convincing it's going to be.
- I really do not enjoy theory debates. Unless your opponent(s) engaged in some absolutely egregious violation of debate conduct, there's a very low chance I vote on your theory args.
- I'm not going to "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory" just because you say "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory." You have to give me a substantive reason to prefer your argument.
- If you read disclosure theory, and your opponent pulls up screenshots of the disclosure, I'm voting you down. Yes, this has happened.
I am a parent judge, not a coach. I competed in speech and debate all through high school and college. I did some LD debate and some CEDA, but I would not call myself a "debater." I always focused more on speech events. I am a lawyer by profession and currently serve as a justice on a state supreme court. So, I evaluate arguments on their merit, but I also put a premium on communication skills. I don't like gamesmanship, but I do understand that if a critical evidentiary or analytical link is missing or goes unrebutted an entire case can fall part.
Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.
I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.
Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)
Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.
Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.
The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.
I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:
(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.
(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.
(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.
Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.
I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.
I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:
(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?
(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).
(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P
Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.
Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).
Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.
Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.
I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.
Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)
Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.
Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024
Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: email@example.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)
Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm
TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.
2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.
The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate
Top Level Stuff
1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.
2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.
3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.
4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.
5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious
6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.
7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.
8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.
9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.
10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks
29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.
29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right
28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics
28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.
28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.
27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly
<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).
Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.
Now on arguments
Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.
Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.
If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.
Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.
I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.
CPs and theory
I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.
States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also
Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.
I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.
I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine
Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.
I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.
FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.
I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.
Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.
I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible
The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.
I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.
Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.
From Seth Gannon's paradigm:
"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."
On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts
These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.
Reasonability = yes
I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.
I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.
I am a lay judge.
Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.
I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.
I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.
Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.
Good luck and have fun!
Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss. I like Yale's Speaker Points guide:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Good luck everyone!
Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022
Columbia University 2022 - Present
Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in debate/speech for the last four and a half years (yeesh). I was a part of the Lincoln East Debate/Speech teams, where I've competed in two years of LD, two years of Policy, three years in Extemp, and a mixture of congress here and there. Overall had great success in the Nebraska circuit on both teams, qualified for Nationals in Policy, Extemp, and Congress multiple times, and competed at NIETOC (Speech). I also competed on the National circuit in high school for both LD/Policy, so I understand the differences between national and local. Currently, I compete with the Columbia Debate Society, where I judge APDA and compete in APDA/BP. Lastly, I study Political-Economy, History, and Business at Columbia.
Cameras: I am perfectly fine if you have your camera off for reasons, whether it be for tech/personal matters. I will have my camera on and would be happy if all of you did the same, but I understand, given the circumstances.
Speed: Generally, go a little slower and speak louder for online rounds; this will help everyone involved in the current round!
I am good with higher speeds, do keep in mind it's been a while since I've competed in the high school circuit, so I will need a bit of time to adjust. I will say SPEED if you are going too fast. On the other hand, please be CLEAR; people don't understand how important it is. I do not care that I have the speech doc. I will say CLEAR two times for each speaker. If you continue to be unclear, I will drop speaks and not flow your speech.
30: Best speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Perfect speech | 99th percentile
29.0 - 29.9: Top speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | little to no flaws | 90th percentile
28.0 - 28.9: Above average speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Few flaws | 75th percentile
27.0 - 27.9: MID speaker at tournament | Flaws were present | 50th percentile (Where most speaks will now fall)
26.0 - 26.9: Below Average Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Many flaws | 25th percentile
25.0 - 25.9: Weak Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Filled with flaws | 10th percentile
Below 25: You said something egregious (this has happened already at a tournament. Let's not have it happen again)
I want to include this section because I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit—moreover, the lessons and equity I have seen come from the APDA circuit in college. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I will call out any form of this I see in rounds and automatically drop the team doing such acts. The team that has done such acts will get tanked speech 25 or lower, and the winning team will get 29s. This is more out of respect for what has been said in rounds.
Moreover, if you believe I may be unethical regarding how I hand out RFDS, my flowing style, or anything else. Please email me (with the email above), so I can improve in the future! Debate is fundamental to me and can be stressful and challenging for everyone. I hope this eases your tensions and sets a lens for how I view ethics in rounds.
I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, where I competed on the national and Nebraska circuits in Policy, LD, and Congress. I am fine with everything, and my favorite argument is the K. My least favorite is the CP. But I will vote on anything. I am still a newer judge, so if that concerns you, strike me, but I have judged numerous nat circuit policy rounds.
I flow tags & authors on the case level. I fully flow entire shells for topicality/theory/FW, so please read the t-shell slowly. I am extremely annoyed when teams on the neg read the shell as evidence. It's not helpful when more and more debaters are not sending shells over speech docs, please slow down for shells at the very least. I am fine with speed, but not when it comes to a straight shell. In addition, slowing down on tags/authors also helps differentiate the flow, especially in online debate. I need to tell you are switching audibly; you can still go fast, but it should not be the same speed as the card.
Tbh persuade me on this, I can see both sides, so whoever is winning the flow for the round decides.
I am combing both of these because I see a lot of crossovers already, and it's applicable where necessary. I will have an LD-specific section at the bottom for some nuance stuff.
I am mixed on disclosure. I will go ahead and vote on it; if you are running it, please send a screenshot with the wiki page. I am not looking for you. If AFF says they are breaking new, and it's true, don't run it. However, if you are running an identity K like anti-Blackness or are a minority debater, I am persuaded to hear disclosure bad arguments. Overall though, it is a procedural fairness argument.
If you know what this means, you understand how I view rounds.
I like the plan if it's formatted well and the plan text is engaging. The more hyper-specific the plan, the better. Please give me something truly unique. Also, if you want to LARP in LD by using a straight Util (Standard/Value/V-C) or insert a plan text go full f***ing ahead. I will love you. I am perfectly fine with traditional LD (more details below), but I am okay with you all breaking LD. One caveat is to make sure the plan links to the topic somehow. I will still hear the theory/FW arg on plans aff bad. But if it doesn't link, I have to vote you down (unless they drop the FW/theory, lol).
I love K affs. I ran a Deleuze K Aff for most of the senior year; I am perfectly fine with it, but could you make sure it links to the topic in some capacity? If it doesn't, then FW/theory will be more persuasive. Also, if you are hit with theory/FW, I found it very powerful to use your authors to argue against it instead of basic analytics or general block files. Improves the ethos to such a degree. I also ran a performance Aff on anti-Blackness with Tupac lyrics. So yeah, I am the best person for this in many rounds, so this is your chance to run this stuff. Please do it!
K is love, K is life. I am a K debater through the through. I am tired of policy teams not closing on the K. I understand it's not the right call, but I like it. I am also tire of policy teams running 2/3 card K (this might be a personal gripe). General links to the topic are fine but weak if the link is directly tied to the affirmative. More specific the link, the better! I only buy the perm if you de-link from the K. Like, don't read perm evidence if you didn't argue on the link debate. I am familiar with Deleuze, anti-Blackness, Cap, Set-col, and security, and I am least familiar with Puar, obscure authors, and model-minority myth. But I like a meaty K, and if you spend an entire 2NC on the K, you are my hero (please make it worth a whole 2NC).
Tbh, little to say here. I like DAs like all of them (Linear politics etc.); could you ensure the link and UQ are clear? I've seen this more and more, where people run a K link with an impact with no alt. I don't know if this is a DA, but if you want to run your K as a DA without alt solvency, Go for it. Offense is offense.
I will always prefer you engage with the affirmative if possible. I think boring FW/theory shells are cringe and suck the life out of interesting rounds. For example, if the aff is disclosed and mentions this, well, I find the FW/theory dumb. In addition, when it's a common K argument, It's even more cringe. Yet, I will vote on it if debated well. The only time I see theory on the level of FW necessary is if aff gets up and some Unicorns invade America, go full ahead; that ain't predictable in the slightest. I mentioned this above, but if your performance/k aff can link to the topic area, I see its relevance. On the other hand, for other theory arguments, go for them. Some are more persuasive than others. Vague alt and disclosure are always good.
Speed Theory: I am making a section for this, unless needed, such as for accommodation. This is bad in policy. I can buy this a bit more in LD, but I feel there are easy accommodations like disclosure, asking for speech docs beforehand, whatever. However, if your opponent is not accommodating to you, please run the theory and provide evidence, whether it be an email chain. I will vote on this!
I ran a lot of topicality (minor repair test) and found it pretty cool. It might just be the NATO topic, but it's been a little confusing (probably due to topic knowledge) a lot of the t arguments, so make sure to explain in detail the t flow for me. This is arguably one of the easiest places to vote. I default to reasonability.
My worse argument. I wasn't much of a counter-plan debater in high school, but I understand the nitty gritty. But, the techier the CP flow becomes, you will lose me. Also, if you are closing on the CP, could you please explain this to me? If there is one area where I could squirrel, it will be the CP/PIC flow. Also, could you make sure the CP/PIC is competitive? I am also fine with word PICs.
Preface: It's been a while since I have competed in LD. I was progressive but still ran trad, when needed. I have no topic knowledge for (Columbia 2023) so bear with me.
Value/Standard/V-C: If you are running traditional, that is perfectly fine with me. I start primarily at the top level with the framework for the round. I do not care if you have the Value/V-C or just a standard. Don't think if you win FW, you win the round unless it's a Kant vs. Util round LMFAO
Contention-Level: Contention-level is where you win rounds in LD. Making sure to have strong offense and defense is key
RVI: Ye, y'all get RVIs; theory in the 1NC is hella abusive, so I buy it.
LARPing: I mentioned this earlier, but I am fine with this in LD, link to the topic, of course, but neg will probably read FW. Now, would this be amazing if you both decide to LARP; I will love you. I would email your competitor beforehand if you want to do this, and I will evalaute the round like a minature policy round.
I think Condo is good. I will listen to condo bad args, so don't worry about that. My biggest pet peeve is when going a condo route, make sure what you are closing on makes sense together or just entirely collapse to one flow in the 2NR. For example, do not close on a topicality shell and an Aropess K in the 2NR; those literally do not make sense together. But, ye, if you want to spam the flow with 3 Ks, 2 CPs, and a DA, we are chilling.
Truth vs. Tech
I prefer tech more, but I do not want the most blippy args coming out of nowhere. I see the two as compliments; the higher quality evidence with insane tech is *chef's kiss*
Right now, I am open to trick debate (for the time being). I am still unaware of the nuance of it all and have yet to hit many tricks debaters or judged. But this will be updated if it's a terrible way to debate.
I am mixed on this because I was on the receiving hand of this back in high school. But if you want to run a Shrek K in front of me, do it.
PF (Revise later)
I probably will never be judging this event, but I am sorry. I have an extremely negative disposition towards this event (if you want to know, ask me). If I have to judge this event more or coach it, I will give a better paradigm.
Congress (Revise later)
I did a short stint with congress. I did it because I did extemp, so use that as a metric. I will be able to evaluate confidently and keep up with the news reasonably frequently, so if you are lying, I will know.
I currently compete in the APDA college circuit and have judged multiple rounds. Care much more for the bigger picture and how you carry evidence throughout the round. A slower speed is preferred compared to LD/Policy, roughly around PF or Congress speed is fine.
This is my first time judging PF debate and english is not my first language. But no worries I've several experiences of judging competitions in other system. During rounds, I would appreciate debater could speak a little bit slower. I'd prioritize student's capability in creating their analysis and materials that they give during their speeches. Furthermore, giving facts and step by step analysis on their argument would be great rather than just throwing facts only. Rebuttal and responses with deep analysis to prove why your side is better compared to another is better. The win teams would be a team that can explain their analysis with facts followed with impacts that materialized in their speeches and may be impactful for us in the future.
TL;DR: I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't actively discriminatory (racism good, etc.) but also I'm bad at evaluating some stuff I talk about later.
Read this if you're at CatNat quals: I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter. If you're a circuit debater hitting a trad debater, I'll judge the round as if it were a traditional round. The major implication of this is that you won't win on the "read an apriori to get william's ballot then spend the rest of my speech on substance" strat. You can stop reading this paradigm here but if you want to hear my circuit paradigm (if you plan on having a circuit round or you're just curious about my interesting and objectively correct debate opinions) go ahead.
Read this if you're a novice: The rest of this paradigm doesn't really matter for you. I will evaluate the round based on the winning framework, I don't care about the truth of an argument if it's won, feel free to ask me any questions, I'm here to help!
Quick note: I haven't thought about debate or heard spreading in about a year, so if you're a super technical/fast debater, I may not be the judge for you.
Hi, I'm William, a current Sophomore at Columbia University. I debated LD for 4 years, mostly national circuit tournaments. email@example.com for chains
Very Important: Send anything prewritten you have in a doc when you read it. Prewritten overviews, blocks, etc. This is important for accessibility.
I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter.
I don't really care what you read as long as you can explain it to me. I'm more comfortable evaluating phil and tricks stuff, then larp, then dense ks/performance. I'll evaluate whatever you read, I'm probably just better at some things. This is especially important for performance, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability, but I've never understood fully how to implicate it in round. Read what you think will win you the round, but know that I go in with prior knowledge.
some defaults (only if there's no argument about them, once a debater makes a claim about any of these, the default doesn't matter):
no rvis, no judge kick, yes 1ar theory, competing interps, drop the debater, epistemic confidence, presume neg, T=theory>K>substance, comp worlds, theory as norm setting.
If I forgot anything, ask me and I'll tell you what I default to.
Random notes that might be useful
1. Non T affs: I'm happy to vote on a non t aff if you win it on the flow, but I tend to lean more to the side of T in these debates, so you're fighting an uphill battle. (not that you can't or shouldn't read them, just know that I have tended to fall on the side of TFW in the past).
2. I have a relatively high bar for 2ar/2nr explanations for phil/k theories, don't blip past a million buzzwords, tell me why your view of the world/ethics/power/etc. is true, then why I care in the context of the res (or not the res depending on the round, you know what I mean)
3. Theory: Theory is only frivolous if you can prove it is. I may think shoes theory is a bad argument, but if its won its won (but I will be sad if you read shoes theory in front of me and you'll get a 26)
4. I don't flow CX but I listen to it. This means I will hold you to your CX explanations or lack thereof, but things said in CX aren't arguments.
5. Topic lit: I have read exactly 0 topic lit, don't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't tell me
6. The ROB is to vote for the better debater: If you read this, I will have no clue how to evaluate the round. The point of a ROB is to tell me what it means to be a better debater, pls don't just say "whoever's better"
7. I won't vote on "evaluate [x thing] after [current speech]". If you read evaluate theory after the 1ar in the 1ar, i won't vote on it, if you read it in the ac then read 1ar theory, I'll vote on it and be sad. That being said, I have a super low threshold for answering these arguments because they're explicitly designed to not have debate and punish someone for missing one blip.
8. Some disclosure bad args are probably underutilized and have the potential to win the disclosure debate. Interpret this how you want to lol. (Note for after rereading this: This doesn't mean don't read disclosure. If you think its strategic, go for it. I will happily vote on it if you win.)
9. Please consider the implications of your skepticism claims. If all truth claims are undecidable, your presumption and permissibility claims are too. I obviously won't make this implication in round for you, but I am sad when this isn't brought up.
Positions I loved as a debater: Ilaw, Agamben NIB, theory is incoherent,
I'm an LD debater, so if there are any PF specific rules/norms I probably won't know them (I know basic stuff like no new args in FF and stuff like that). I care a lot more abt the warranting you give than the specifics of the evidence/ethos-y stuff. If you can't explain your card's warrant I don't really care that it's by some famous economist. I evaluate off the flow, tell me which arguments I should vote on and why they're the most important. Also I know PF is starting to have some K/theory stuff, if both debaters are down I'd be happy to judge that round, but if one side doesn't want to, just read normal PF stuff.
Hello Debate Scholars,
I love to see well developed and researched contentions. The more concise and endepth evidence the better. I enjoy when scholars are aware and show compassion for communities and for topics that focus on tough social and political issues. It is important for debaters to have a solid understanding of the various stories, narratives and experiences of the stakeholders involved within each issue. I appreciate culturally relevant stances that embrace and tackle deep rooted issues surrounding race, racism, discrimination, identity and equity. I most enjoy when debate scholars try their very best to present clear, concise and solution based speeches that uphold the dignity and respect for every person involved in their speech. I have been coaching middle school and high school debate for 7 years. My teams have won League, State and National Championships. It is with great honor that I am fortunate to see debate scholars who debate with love, respect and a great spirit of competitiveness for their craft.
Chiara D. Fuller
Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021. I TOC qualled twice and got 13 career bids.
Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well
I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.
assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon
One winner and one loser
Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.
How to Win:
You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.
How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:
-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.
-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."
-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.
-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.
-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.
I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.
That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.
Slow down on:
1. Advocacy/CP Texts
2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)
3. Theory Interps
4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)
I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.
-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.
-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.
-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."
- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case
- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.
- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.
- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.
- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.
- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.
Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:
Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen
A bit about me -
I competed in high school policy debate for three years so I am very familiar with the format and nuances. While competing in policy, I helped generally coach other speech and debate events. I now compete in college parliamentary debate.
For all debate styles: Respect is key. Make sure to respect your opponents and maintain a safe environment for the debate to occur. Any discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated and will result in a downvote. Speak confidently, fill your time, and try your best to be organized. I can do speed but I do not enjoy spreading/spewing. My philosophy is if you are just going to spread, I might as well just turn off my sound and read your document instead because there is no actual "debating" happening (I won't but I will just be annoyed lol). If I cannot understand your arguments (due to the nature of their delivery) I cannot vote on them. I will vote on theory arguments if presented sufficiently.
LD: I have general knowledge about traditional and progressive LD debate styles. I prefer evidence clash, more logos-based arguments, and good framing. That being said, as long as you have clear link chains/warranting your arguments with evidence, I will vote for them.
Policy: I am open to both traditional and progressive debate styles. I really appreciate good framing in policy as I believe, specifically in tighter debates, the framework can often play a major role. Make sure your link chains are solid and clearly signpost your arguments. I will vote for a Kritik if presented/debated adequately. Honestly, I am really game for whatever as long as you present/debate it adequately.
Good luck! I look forward to listening.
I am a second year at UVA and debated LD for Lexington High School for 4 years and qualified to the TOC. As a debater, I mostly ran phil and policy-style arguments, notably Kant and Virtue Ethics. Coaching actively on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.
Chain: speechdrop.net or firstname.lastname@example.org
- I will never vote on "vote for me because I am x identity" arguments.
- Disclosure is good.
- Don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. Saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4,6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. Won't vote on conceded claims.
- Please time yourselves.
- Death/suffering good (spark and wipeout type stuff is fine)
quick prefs: 1 - phil, 1-2 policy and k, 2-3 theory, and 4-6 tricks.
Policy- I like policy arguments and feel comfortable evaluating them. Strong impact calculus wins debates and is often the first part of the flow I took to when making a decision. Default - judge kick unless aff makes args otherwise.
Phil - This is the format of debate I did the most thinking about in my career. I mainly read Kant and Virtue Ethics but also occasionally read more niche frameworks such as Testimony and Double Effect. Share similar views to phil debate and frameworks as Andrew Garber. I love good phil debates so NC/AC debate will be rewarded with higher speaks!
Kritiks - K's should prove that the aff is a bad idea - your job to win framing debate because it decides the debate. Familiar with most K's but that doesn't mean the 2NR gets away with a lackluster explanation of K's thesis and impact and how it interacts with the affirmative & Kaffs - don't lose to T and presumption so explain what the aff does. I think the best kaffs have some tether to the topic while shutting out potential negative disad and counterplan links.
Theory - Check Matthew Berhe for his thoughts on theory debate and defaults as mine are relatively the same. Don't spam shells - read with a purpose.
Thresholds (more of a preference than a yes/no on whether I'll evaluate them)
---Fine - counterplan theory, T, resolutional spec, AFC, spec status, etc.
---Not fine - font size/type/color, dinosaurs, avatars, etc.
Strake Jesuit Class of 2020
Email - email@example.com
Debate is a game, first and foremost.
I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument
Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.
Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.
Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry
I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.
How to get good speaks
- be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
- If you are against a novice win the round then use your remaining speech time to sing an Avril Lavigne song
- making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
- Reference something from Scooby-Doo
Do any of these things, and you will for sure get above a 28.5
How to get low speaks
- Having bad strategy choice
-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.
- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please.
Styles of Debate -
Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.
K - Just make sure to explain it super well, as I think a well-done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true; I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.
Larp - Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.
Tricks -I read a lot of tricks but like most judges find them less interesting debates to judge. If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.
Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first and default competing interpretations.
Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.
I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.
I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”
If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.
In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.
Important things to note:
-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.
-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^
-High-theory will be an uphill battle.
-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.
-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.
-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature
-Swearing is probably word inefficient
-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them
-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB
-I think debate is a competition.
-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round
-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.
Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:
-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:
-warrant and evidence comparison is made
-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized
-the aff advocates a topical plan
-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for
-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy
-I am not expected to sort through high-theory
-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection
Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:
-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC
-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)
-There is no 3NR
-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)
-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)
-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”
-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive
Unimportant things to note:
-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t
-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research
-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy
-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates
-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.
-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.
I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.
That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.
I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.
Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.
Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.
I come into the round presuming:
-the aff should be defending the resolution
-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution
-my ballot answers the resolutional question
-debate is a game
These presumptions can likely be changed.
Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:
-dense phil that you’re spreading through
-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution
-process CPs that result in the aff
-more than 2 condo
-friv theory - I ❤️ substance
-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions
-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches
I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.
Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!
Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.
Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies.
I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.
Tech > Truth.
Do what you want to do.
Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.
1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.
2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.
EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.
3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.
4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."
5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.
6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.
7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.
8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)
If you have any other questions, let me know before round!
i need content warnings for SA and self harm. please refrain from reading arguments with relevent content or arguments that preach about the goodness of death.
hi! i'm neel or nk (they/them). i did circuit ld for a season and circuit pf for a little more. i attend the university of michigan (go blue), but i don't debate for the school.
put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
tech > truth but a combination is ideal. i also don't care about tech or truth if you have been disrespectful.
generally more progressive for pf - cool with speed, a fan of disclosure and cut cards, and good for progressive arguments.
i enjoy well thought out debates that break out early, that feature high-quality evidence, clever strategy, and good contestation. this is largely how i determine speaker points.
i disagree with the idea of sticky defense - if you want an argument in your back pocket for the final focus, you should extend it.
i'm a good judge for underutilized strategies (impact turns, circumvention, presumption, etc.)
new disads in the 2nd rebuttal are fine and can be strategic. just make sure to do weighing on them.
probability weighing is not real - probability is a function of defense, so just win a sufficient risk of a link.
read turns case arguments. please.
policy - 1
better for CP theory than most other policy judges, but i think it makes for stale debates.
better for low off debates with strong case pushes.
evidence quality is very important and can decide debates (both through spin and ethics challenges).
impact turns are cool but i don't evaluate wipeout or death good.
k - 1/2
i have a soft spot for unique k affs but i'm 50/50 on framework. not picky on what route you decide to take (hard right fairness is just as viable as any other strategy).
i dislike overviews that "implicitly" answer everything - i strongly prefer hearing the lbl work after a short and sweet overview.
best for identity kritiks, good for the stock stuff, and bad for pomo literature.
i like unique presumption and tailored case arguments against k affs.
t/theory - 2/3
i don't enjoy hearing nebel debates but i'll still flow and evaluate arguments made on the t page.
competing interps, no rvis, drop the arg for theory. drop the debater for t.
great for cp theory, terrible for frivolous shells. big fan of disclosure. not a big fan of other violations sourced out of round.
not going to evaluate arguments that police appearance.
tricks - 4/strike
these confuse me - they're often read blippily and quickly, making me a very meh judge for these.
i evaluate debates after the 2ar and will not allow an evil demon to make me vote aff or neg.
phil - 4/strike
i think i haven't read enough or fostered a strong enough interest to want to listen to these debates.
i can understand kant, and that's about it. do with this what you will.
One year of LD debating experience. Three years of New England Schools Association Parliamentary Debate experience.
I am currently a student at Columbia University in the City of New York.
-Came from a small debating school in NJ—little experience with theory, but I shouldn't have trouble evaluating a round based off it if your warranting is clear
-I will dock speaks for making arguments that are insensitive/problematic in the context of cultural/gender/racial/ethnic identity—a good rule of thumb is to think about whether you are making a generalization, and what/who that generalization might disregard
i did trad ld + wsd.
dont expect me to have any topic knowledge
read taglines and authors SUPER SLOW
summarize what’s going on in the round whenever possible
flex prep is cool
i lean uncondo, good luck trying to convince me otherwise
read animal rights/anthropocentrism bad arguments and i will be very happy (+speaks)
- Explain thoroughly. You know your arguments very well, but they will be new to me so please explain them clearly. Your claims should be logically sound. If you are throwing out a crazy claim or card that seems contrary to logic, you're going to have to explain it very well.
- Try not to spread.
Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommended that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommended fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds.
I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.
Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a disked needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.
I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way.
Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make since. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.
I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.
I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.
Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy
FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.
Hey, I'm Elaine (she/her). I'm a first-year at MIT; in high school I did 4 years of LD with extensive experience in World Schools (nsda 2x quarters) and a bit of experience in Extemp.
(Note: most of this paradigm is Ely Altman's)
In LD, I focused on trad and policy debate and do not have that much experience with K's or advanced theory. That being said, I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic knowledge. But if you have more stock arguments available, I do prefer those.
Please include me on the email chain: email@example.com. If you go too fast or aren't clear when reading, though, I won't fill in the gaps for you. I also don't love listening to spreading, so please try not to unless you absolutely have to.
Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first for me though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.
I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing and world comparison in the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.
If you make me laugh you'll get a mini speaks boost.
Lastly, if possible, make me care about your arguments! Tell me explicitly who you help, and why that matters. Judges aren't robots. If you can give me a convincing narrative tinged with passion, it goes a long way.
traditional debate / flay - 1
identity Ks - 3
High theory Ks and phil - 4
T/theory- 4. I don't love, but I'll vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you have to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.
Tricks - strike. Just don't.
I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Rinse and repeat until the debate has a winner. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.
Now, here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.
1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).
2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me why your offense is more important than your opponents.
3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on.
4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.
5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.
6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!
I'm in between on the tech vs. truth debate. Obviously, tech matters because full truth would justify me voting for Aff just because I personally believe that side. Full tech justifies the race to the bottom we see right now with debaters throwing out unwarranted blips and expecting to win because their opponent dropped a single sentence. I'm somewhere in the middle probably slightly leaning towards tech. No one is tabula rasa. You trust me to use my agency to make a decision about who won the round, so trust me to use my agency to decide whether tech or truth matters more in a specific round.
Things I like: increasing accessibility in the debate space (i.e being inclusive to small schools & new debaters), warranted out link chains, probability>magnitude weighing. Good evid ethics! Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh, signpost, and extend.
Things I dislike: Tricks, lack of clarity, when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, arguments that are (either implicitly or explicitly) exclusionary, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That will get you dropped. Also new in the last speech, just don't.
CX is binding.
I did some extemp my senior year and have watched a lot of speech rounds online, I will try my best to evaluate rounds!
If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!
I'll keep this short and simple. I am a flay judge with 8 years experience judging and coaching (with a much more legit coach). I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I know what I'm doing at this point. Having said that:
1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are dreadful.
2. Common sense arguments are not great. Give me evidence.
3. Signpost as you go. Helps me keep my flow organized.
4. Keep your impacts at the forefront, but also keep them grounded (if you "solve for world hunger", or the end of your linkchain is the annihilation of the human race, I'm going to be skeptical).
5. If cross turns into a yelling match I will tune it out and start thinking about dinner.
Good luck, and have fun.
Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!
My expectations for debaters:
--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.
--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.
--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.
--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.
--- Signpost in your speeches.
--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.
--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )
Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)
Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.
TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)
Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.
If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.
Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge
Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.
Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns, I went to Harrison High School and debated for 4 years. I currently go to Wellesley College and major in Philosophy and double minor in political theory and media studies.
- Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.
- Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.
Ks - 1
Non-T performance - 1
Soft Left K/K aff - 1
Theory - 3
LARP - 5/6
Phil - 5
Tricks - Strike
Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, fem Ks, and cap Ks.
If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.
If you have me and aren't a K debater I would love it if you had some soft left K aff (basically implementation of the resolution but impact to structural violence, or a ROB about equality. Just. Not. Util.)
Larp can be done well but I well just never get on the Util bandwagon - if you win it I'll vote on it, but I certainly will not be happy.
I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times.
I read Ks but that doesn't mean that no K is abusive. Give me a good TVA, one that is specific to the K (if you don't have one because they didn't disclose, tell me that). Theory can be really interesting to me if you know what you are doing and I enjoy a good extension of each part.
T against non T affs should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate. I also think that you should though some impact turns/critical reasons being non t is bad. in the shell.
Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively.
For Novice LD:
- Novice debate is really challenging in the beginning so don't worry! I will try to help as much as a can with my reason for decision (RFD). Ask me any questions you have after the round.
- Feel free to run any argument you are comfortable with as long as it is explained, links to the winning framework, etc, I will probably vote for it.
- Novice rounds are usually messy (It is okay, you are new!), just try to explain all of your arguments, why that means you win, and how you link to the winning framework.
- I want clear voting issues at the end or during your speech.
- I want some big picture arguments explaining what the neg/aff world's would look like (especially in util debates.)
-Overall, have fun with it and try your best!
This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.
I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.
If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.
Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.
Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.
Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.
I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.
The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.
Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.
Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.
The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.
I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.
You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.
Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.
LD paradigm ends here.
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.
My email is email@example.com
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.
Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.
I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.
Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.
Case debate is underrated.
Straight turns are great turns.
Topics DAs >> Politics.
I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.
While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.
9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):
While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.
I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.
Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.
theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.
if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (firstname.lastname@example.org)
hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)
Harrison High School '21, Cornell University '25
tl;dr pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks
Accommodations & Accessibility
accessibility is very important to me! please tell me & ur opponent any accommodations u may need before the round. it's a good idea to share these in writing in case there is an accessibility issue in round that u want to make an arg about, but expressing them verbally is also great. PLEASE slow and clear ur opponent as many times as u need. please disclose any content areas u don't feel comfortable discussing before round (to me & ur opponent) and give content warnings
also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating u are, the better speaks you'll get. that doesn't mean let ur opponent walk all over u, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/
I graduated 3 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine w speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder). also, record your speeches for online debate (also not a bad idea to record them for in-person tbh)
stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest [edited for grammar]
- if u can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, u prob don't deserve to win
I pay attention to cx but don't flow it - very important for establishing links, violations, etc. I think if ur going to read any K or shell, you need to ask Qs in cx to solidify/get more links
I prob won't know the nuances of the topic so make sure to explain ur empirics and how ur theory of power functions in relation to the topic
I read mostly Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with. I read a lot of disability (Sick Woman Theory, Spoon Theory), gender rights, and racial equity args
I don't care if ur topical or not
I love trad debate! this is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.
I guess I'm fine judging LARPy stuff. I do hate util & extinction scenarios but I'll vote on it if there is literally no other option (please don't make me vote on extinction). there are just so many good arguments against util & Singer was a eugenicist. LARP debates are some of the most uninspiring debates I've ever had and ur speaks prob won't be amazing if the round is j LARP
if I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me. also, the majority of phil authors have expressly racist/sexist/homophobic views/their theories justify abuse of minorities, which I do not think belong in debate. I am very persuaded by reps Ks against phil authors.
the burden of proof is on u to explain ur theory to me I'm not gonna do research to understand u
don't read tricks & friv theory in front of me xoxo
I'm like 70% truth & 30% tech
- ur not gonna convince me the sky is green and I won't vote on it
- but following the structure of a T shell makes my life easier in terms of flowing and deciding
disclosure is prob good unless u have a good reason to not disclose. using the wiki is good unless u have a good reason not to use the wiki
I love framework debates (NOT T-FW)! I think it's weird when the neg debater reads a FW and then doesn't engage w the aff's FW in the NC. don't do this in front of me - ur better off j conceding to the aff's FW and spending more time on different args
I also think it's a major missed opportunity to not spend a good amount of time in ur rebuttals extending ur FW and explaining 1. why ur winning FW and 2. why ur opponent has no offense under ur FW. if ur opponent is winning four neg offs that don't link to ur FW and ur winning FW, idc about the neg offs. spend time on that in ur speeches for good speaks
Specifics on Theory:
I will always prefer issues that would normally read as theory to be read as a K (with a drop the debater implication/alternative) because I have always been better at flowing and understanding Ks better than theory. but I know this is unpopular so I won't hold this against u if u don't do this.
if u are reading theory, make sure to read paradigm issues (seems obvious but you'd be surprised). I generally think reasonability and RVIs good unless u tell me otherwise. I don't think fairness exists, and I don't think debate is a game. I'd prefer if u impacted the shell to accessibility (I think that is the most important thing in debate, with education as a close second). I guess I'd vote on fairness if both sides agree that fairness is the end goal of the shell tho
stolen from Hertzig's paradigm: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it). [edited for grammar]
a note on how I judge:
I always loved affirming when I debated. I love when aff debaters just go for the aff against a bunch of neg offs and use the args in the aff to take out the neg's offense. it shows that ur aff is really well written and thought-out and also shows that u know what ur case says and how to use it. if u can do this well, ur speaks will reflect how happy I am :)
ON THE OTHER SIDE don't do this if ur neg. there is no point in reading an NC and then using the same args u j read against the AC - it's a waste of time. diversify ur args
in conclusion pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks
Hey Everyone! My Name is Ijeoma, I've debated for Bangor High School for 4 years and graduated in 2020. I have qualified for NSDA and NCFL Nats.
General:Here's an overall guide to how I look at judging my rounds
- Warranting and impacts are imperative. The content of your argument should have a justification (warrant) and this is to help with not just the flow, but to help (me) after the round to weigh what both sides have presented to decide the winner of the debate.
- Do not be afraid to set up framework in your debate, I'm a big fan of framework. A guide as to how you plan to view the round is to your favor. Sidenote, I will allow roadmapping, but do not take this extra time to start laying down arguments, simply say how you'll use your time and go for it.
- Back in high school I was very centered on traditional debate, with a core on philosophical arguments. With that being said, at this time I don't have a preference for either style, and I'm pretty much comfortable with anything as long as it is 1) Coherent, 2) done well, and 3) builds your arguments. It's fine to use theory, just be sure you're confident that you're okay with running it.
- I am not a fan of tricks in args. I find them to be abusive, and it seems most sides have a difficult time responding to them.
- I need reasoning for your voter points. It's a must, else it's the equivalent of saying a statement. It will be flowed, but it will have no impact without an explanation.
- Prescripting arguments: This is somewhat okay, but I wish to see debaters at their best, thinking of arguments on the fly.
- I am not a fan of spreading. If you have a long argument, I understand, but if you're speaking at a million words per minute, I promise you that your opp. and I will not understand you one bit.
Any concerns or questions? Tell me before we start the round! I'm wishing you all the best!
Hey, if you are reading this then I'm Judging you. So ill give you a rundown on what I like and dislike in debate
- For proper argument to be made in your case. Give me arguments in your case not just counterpoints
- Proper clash, If you are here to debate then actually debate, don't just keep defending your case but go on the offense too.
- I like slow well thought out arguments I want to be able to understand the arguments you are making.
-traditonal debate, please don't bring in a million different theories to debate
-disads, don't care for these for the most part it has to be argued effectively for me to vote for you
- Counterpoint based cases, if you are doing this I won't vote in your favor if your whole case is just counterpoints
- Spreading, if you going to spread chances are I'm not going to understand you and I will probably be missing a lot of your points in the process.
- Lack of clash, if there is no clash then it makes it hard for me to vote.
-Outlandish links to Nuclear War: Just stop doing this, seriously if your link chain is more than 2 deep i'm not counting that as an argument
-Tricks: This will literally get you dropped I don't care, we debate in debate nothing more nothing less
- If your case is off topic then I probably will just not listen, nor care.
- Any arguments that attack groups of individuals based on RACE, GENDER, SEXUALITY, ABILITY OR DISABILITIES, or have any stigmatized arguments I will drop you and once I hear it I will be giving you a loss. I have no patience for this and will ignore any other argument you make.
Hi if your looking at this, I will judge you
about me/flex section:
hello hs debaters. im kolitha perera and i debated for 4 years at north allegheny hs. i was that kid at my hs that was "addicted" to debate. if any of yall are like that trust me when u get to college youll realise its not that deep. anyway i accumulated a total of 4 gold bids and 1 silver bid during my career but didnt get to go to tocs bc my partner decided to go to DECA instead (lame). im a big fan of slow, flow, substance debate. IMO fast prog debate makes the activity less about skill and more about your ability to say random stuff that you don't even know about. this new age of debate is just bad. you dont have to agree but dont try to change my mind.
prog: I encourage you to run progressive arguments so I can give you the L (the exception: arguments that advocate for the destruction of progressive debate are a dub and will be allowed and evaluated). Also, im not super experienced in theory or anything else so paragraph form shells are prolly better.
spreading: I also encourage you to spread so I can give you the L
pls DO NOT SPREAD i will not flow it
framework: bro don't bring up some weird philosophy. framework should just be pre-emptive weighing in case
extend evidenceANDwarrants or it will not be extended
do not read straight cut cards thats bs, pls paraphrase y'all can evaluate the evidence for yourselves
PLEASE GIVE OFF TIME ROAD MAPS BEFORE EACH SPEECH THEY SHOULD BE SIMPLE THO LIKE ex. "their case, our case, weighing"
bonus speaks + things i really like:
please just completely destroy your opponents in cross. i really dont care how crude your language (profanity or whatever is fine, no inherently offensive language obviously) is as long as ur attacking ur opponents argument and not them as a person.
creative taglines (alliterations and just weird/comedy stuff): +1 speaks
hyper unique arguments: +1 speaks
These arguments will give you auto 30 speaks:
Any arguments about sulfur
Any arguments about helium
Any arguments Sri Lanka
Any arguments about apes
how you can win my ballot:
i vote purely off of the flow so be good at that
Extend defense in summary, even if it's clean
extend ur case properly in summary. so many people skimp on case extention in summary its not even funny. thats literally offense how you win the round just do it with card names or else it will not be flowed
no new anything in second summary except for responding to NEW defense in 1st summary
weighing in both summaries
NO NEW CONTENT IN EITHER FINAL FOCUS (not only will this not be considered, I will be less likely to vote for you in a tie situation)
i debated ld for one tournament in high school
substance only, and everything in the pf section still applies
Hello. I am a parent judge, hence I would appreciate a more lay/traditional round.
Please do not spread or speak fast.
In terms of arguments, please keep it traditional. I will not understand Kritiks, Theory, or LARP unless they're lay arguments. I'm not trying to be lame, I just won't be able to evaluate them well. Maybe one day I'll learn.
Most importantly, have fun with this! It's so incredible that you all are so young and able to grasp such complicated concepts.
I'm looking forward to watching some great debates.
Edit: For the Great Communicator Presidential Debate Series ignore all of this. They told me to judge super lay so I'm just going to take some notes but not flow or anything.
Hey my name’s Sarah (she/her) and I’m a first-year at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. I did debate all four years of high school, mainly focusing on LD but with experience in PF and World Schools as well.
As an LD debater I focused on traditional and policy debate and don't have much experience with K's or theory. That being said, I am open to hearing most kinds of arguments, and will do my best to evaluate them (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic or argument knowledge. If I don't understand the argument, even if you "won" on the flow, I won't vote for you.
Please don't spread.
Add me to the email chain - email@example.com, but if you go too fast or aren't clear when reading I won't fill in the gaps for you.
Other things to keep in mind:
- IMPORTANT: debate should be an inclusive space. I will drop you and give you low speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory in any other way.
- For online debate I would prefer it if you have your camera on.
- I flow. Make your arguments clear and PLEASE signpost. If I don’t know where you are there is no way for me to be able to understand your argument or properly write it on my flow.
- Have good evidence ethics. I might ask for cards at the end if needed so please make sure your evidence actually says what you are saying it does and that you aren’t misconstruing or lying about what your author is saying.
- Your last speech NEEDS to consist of voters and weighing. If this doesn’t happen it makes the round very difficult to evaluate. Also no new arguments your last speech, I will not consider them.
- Bonus speaks if you make me laugh.
If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!
Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy and am best at judging policy arguments. (P.S. I realized that I tend to give way higher speaks in substance debates. Take that as you wish)
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 1
K (security, cap, set col) - 2
K (anything else) - 3
Phil/Tricks – 3
- Tech > Truth
- Fairness > Education
- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
- T/Theory > K
- Comparative Worlds
- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.
- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.
- No buffet 2nrs please
- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously
- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar
- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation.
- Stealing prep
Things I'm not voting on
- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure).
- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater.
- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument
- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".
- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)
- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge.
- Likes: impact calc, ev comparison, plans with tight scenarios and big impacts, rehighlighting ev, cheaty CPs, reading theory against cheaty CPs, "the order is case"
- Dislikes: not weighing, old/no UQ, underhighlighted ev, plan flaw, other debater: asks you a cx question about your ev you: "where is it/that", literally extending your tags in the 2NR
- Somewhat familiar with most K lit at this point, but refuse to fill any substantive gaps in your explanation.
- Likes: robust line by line, root cause, link turns case, good fwk debates, pulling lines from the aff, actual alt solvency, set col vs phil, specific links to the plan
- Dislikes: massive overviews, "what's a floating PIK", the "state" link, the current standard for a sufficient explanation of ontology, no perms in a method debate
K Aff/T Framework
- Affs need solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Negs need an answer to aff solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Likes: testing, fairness, intuitive aff counterinterps, Non T aff vs one off Cap K, TVAs, actual solvency
- Dislikes: "T is violence/policing", 6 minutes of my coaches prewritten fwk 2NR, 3 minutes of my coaches prewritten A2 fwk 2AR, blitzing through the 1ACs theory of power, "we don't need solvency", 2NRs that ignore case
- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate. I just need a very clear extension of why your framework comes first/is true.
- Likes: extinction first, fun calc indicts, Blum, TJFs, going for turns under their fwk
- Dislikes: not reading a fwk in the AC, not reading a fwk in the NC when the AC doesn't read one, the "pragmatism" aff, TT takes out theory, hidden triggers in the fwk
- I will evaluate them the same as any other argument as long as I hear a claim, warrant, and impact.
- Likes: warrants
- Dislikes: "what's an apriori?", condo logic, indexicals, if the negs response to your trick is that it negates just as much as it affirms - you probably shouldn't read it!
- Love it!
- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier.
- Likes: robust weighing, caselists, infinite regress vs spec, combo shells with unique offense
- Dislikes: poor explanation of semantics, 5 second 1AR shells, 2NR theory that isn't severance
- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.
- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.
- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).
My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!
Tristan Rios (they/them)
BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email
Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain
for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar
who on hell is Tristan?
I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)
last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams
I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.
- trigger warnings
- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater
- generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
- I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
- I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
- I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.
if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks
if u open source + 0.1 speaks
Note for LD:
i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences
Lexington High School Class of 2019 – debated for four years - if it matters, I did do the whole TOC thing my senior year.
I am not debating in college, and have little to zero topic knowledge.
I want to be on the chain: email@example.com
Update for Stanford (Policy):
Do not know anything about the topic. Been out of debate for a while, I am comfortable judging policy affs vs DA/CP, K aff vs FW/Cap, or policy affs v K. Less comfortable with K v K rounds and policy affs vs topicality.
Update for PF Debate:
Haven't debated or judged PF, but am somewhat familiar with how these debates are supposed to look. Do not feel the need to spread or incorporate elements from LD/Policy into PF.
Disclosure is important.
Tech>truth, but to a certain extent. For example, just because the 2AC says “vague alts are a voter” with no warrant or impact and the block drops it, this does not mean I immediately vote aff. I am very hesitant in general to vote on blippy one-shot theory arguments.
I will not vote on suffering good, racism good, sexism good, and anything just egregious.
My flow is decent, but it's far from the best. I am fine with speed, but signaling where you are on the flow and clarity is really key for me to follow on. I am also not really into “flowing straight down”.
I tend to think about rounds through an “offensive-defensive” paradigm.
Yes, I will read evidence if needed, but how I read that evidence is dependent on how each team explains their ev and does comparison. I will try to avoid intervening as much as I can, but that depends on you, more comparison and analysis means I will do less work.
In the camp of “read rehighlightings”.
If the 1AR makes a new argument, it must be justified.
I will NOT evaluate arguments about situations that have happened outside the round with other debaters or coaches. Anything that happens inside a debate round is fair game.
Being aggressive is fine, but there is a line.
I’m not the best at maintaining a poker face. If I am confused I will most likely show it, and if I think you are making smart arguments, I will show it.
Online debate note: Given the current condition of debate, flexibility and clarity are very important to me. If anything, go slower than you normally would, and make doubly sure you are clear. Given internet difficulties/feedback/other problems that can come with online debate, debaters should always feel free to ask clarifying questions to the other side about arguments made. As a judge, if I miss an argument due to online difficulty, I will ask for clarification.
For the whole "camera on vs camera not on" question, I think my preference is that debaters should try to have their camera on while giving their speech. However, that is just a slight preference, I really don't care that much. I will try to keep my camera on as a judge but may turn it off in case of internet issues/other circumstances.
I use two monitors and I usually put the tab with the debate I am judging on my second monitor while I flow on my laptop. The above is just to note that I will be oftentimes looking away from my camera which is on my laptop to look at the second monitor with the debaters.
I do not think any judge is purely “tabula-rasa” so below are my general thoughts about arguments. They are not absolute and can be changed through good debating, but are general biases.
Against kritikal affs I went for framework 65% of the time and the Cap K the other 35%.
These types of debates are the ones that tend to evolve the fastest in terms of what offense and defense teams deploy. As such, I will do my best to be open to new innovative arguments from both the framework/K side.
Yes, I am open to voting for framework, and I am open to voting for kritikal affs. Personally I believe there should be some role for the negative, but what that role looks like is up for debate.
The winner of these debates, in my opinion, is the team that does the superior technical debating.
In these debates, I always start with evaluating the case page first and then move to the framework page.
If debated 100% equally on both sides, I would most likely vote negative.
I really liked to think about these debates a lot in high school.
I am good for fairness (this was the impact I went for most in HS), but I think the most interesting framework debates are when the negative goes for a nuanced clash or topic education argument that interacts with the affirmatives offense in some way. I do not think I am super receptive to framework impacts that claim to resolve some existential crisis, however, I do think that in-depth clash over the course of a season is good.
Even if TVA’s do not need to solve the aff, it would be cool if the negative attempts an explanation for why it does.
Switch side debate is severely under-rated.
“You should presume the aff is false because we could not test it” is a silly argument in my opinion and I will most likely not give too much credence to this argument unless completely dropped.
I do not think affs need to have a relation to the topic, but the further the aff deviates from the topic, the more “justification” there has to be in my opinion.
I think counter defining words in the resolution and going for developed DA’s against framework is the best strategy, but if you want impact turn everything, I am fine with that too.
I think kritikal aff’s that defend something material rather than something completely abstract is more persuasive and is less susceptible to presumption type arguments. Aff’s that are eight minutes of straight-up pre-emption to framework will have a harder time beating presumption.
The best pieces of offense for me are ones that are interlaced with the affirmative thesis level claim about why the assumption around framework as “being mutually advantageous and agreed upon” are wrong. I think kritikal affs can have benefits and that the imposition of a more limiting topic can be violent and exclude important types of scholarship.
Just saying “rev v. rev solves” is not an argument to me, but descriptions of alternative models of debate that are not just policy centered can be persuasive.
“The wiki solves” is a cringe argument.
Terminal defense to framework is under-rated.
Questions such as “Is debate just a game?” or “Does debate shape our subjectivity, and in what way?” are important to me. I do not think the aff needs to necessarily win that debate isn't a game, but they should have arguments about how they grapple with the inevitable competitive nature of debate.
Go slower when explaining what your interpretation is and what the topic looks like because I do not have topic knowledge.
Usually a more precise interpretation of the topic is better than an arbitrary interpretation that limits the topic.
In order to win reasonability, you must win why your counter-interpretation is reasonable, not the aff.
Actually do impact calculus, why is aff ground more important than preserving limits and vice versa?
I was mostly on the policy side of this debate, but I am not totally unfamiliar with kritikal concepts given the prevalence in which I debated them. I will be more familiar with anti-blackness, cap, and security type arguments than high theory arguments.
Going to explain your theory of power and WHY it is true will go a long way for me. Throwing around buzzwords assuming I know what they mean will only leave me confused. It would also be helpful if there is a clear explanation for what your theory of power implies for the debate.
Framework is important to me as it influences how I view arguments such as the links and especially the alternative. I do think the negative can win that I should not weigh the aff in the typical sense of just evaluating the plan versus the K. In these debates, teams tend to use vacuous terms such as “scholarship” or “epistemology” without actually telling me what that means in the context of the affirmative. Final rebuttals should not tell me not just why they are winning framework but why that matters in the context of the debate. If the framework debate ends up being a “wash” I will most likely default to weighing the affirmative.
The best links to me are when teams use a thesis level claim of power to create links that show how the aff actually plays out with an impact.
The alternative doesn’t necessarily need to solve the aff, but it has to do something that is not just “reject the aff”.
Having an overview is not an excuse to not do line by line. If the overview is too long, I will be visibly frustrated. If you are going to jump from argument to argument, tell me where you are and instruct me as much as possible. For example, if the permutation is going to be completely covered in the 1NR, tell me that before you start the 2NC so I can organize my flow.
Aff’s should attempt to have some defense of their representations. For example, if the negative forwards a link about why extinction rhetoric is bad, the aff should ideally have evidence that says why extinction rhetoric is good. Just because you get to “weigh” your aff does not always mean you win the aff is a good idea.
I am open to creative advantage CP’s that do not have solvency advocates, but be prepared to answer theory.
Counterplan’s with specific evidence that is tailored to the affirmative are bueno.
I think there needs to be a solvency deficit in order for the permutation to make sense or very strong links to the net benefit argument.
I default to kicking the counter plan unless told otherwise.
I really do not think process or consult counterplan’s are competitive. Stop being scared of a 2NC’s 8 blippy sub pointed answer to “permutation do the CP”.
Impact calc is super important, I am fine with short 2NR overviews, tell me whether to prefer magnitude, timeframe, or probability, and why your impact outweighs.
Link turns case>>>impact turns case
2AC analytics are good only if they are not blippy and actually point out logical flaws in the DA.
Contrary to most people, I actually love the politics DA.
Framing contentions are meant to supplement your answers to a DA, they should not be your only answers.
I usually default to rejecting the argument except on conditionality.
Process/agent/other CP’s that literally result in the aff – Aff leaning
Condo – neg leaning
2NC CP’s – neg leaning
substantive PIC’s – neg leaning
State CP’s – neg leaning
Object fiat – ridiculously aff leaning
Perf con – neg leaning
I never did LD, but know of some of the types of debates that go down here. I am not heavily researched in phil and the topic area, thus certain concepts may need to be further explained in order for me to understand. Everything from above concerning DA's/T/CP's etc. is all applicable here as well.
I should mostly be comfortable with everything except for whatever "tricks" are and frivolous theory. Best for LARP and clash of civ debates.
I probably have a higher threshold for RVI's given that RVI's are not a thing in policy.
Not sure why this is a thing in LD, but do not ask me about your speaker points.
Speaks: Breaking is hard, and I understand that. For me, if you do line by line and have strategic argumentative vision, your speaks will be pretty decent.
I love bold strategies that are well executed.
Former LD Debater for Mountain View High School
firstname.lastname@example.org - email chain.
Competed in Progressive/Traditional formats
- Fine with Kritiks (ran Biopower, SetCol, Cap, MMM, Orientalism myself), CPs, Traditional, etc.
- Fine with Topicality/Theory, a high threshold to consider frivolous theory
- Fine with simple and more complex FWs
- Traditional is just as strategic as Progressive so don't be afraid of complex jargon-based cases
Speed is fine, but be coherent (I'd prefer not to just stare at a doc the whole time)
Don't like tricks
Be considerate of your language
Fine with flex prep
No preference for competing interpretations or reasonability
Any others ?s ask me before round
Hi! I debated LD at Bronx Science and graduated in 2022. I will try to evaluate off the flow, but I won't be the best judge for very technical debates as I've probably forgotten a lot of debate concepts and terms. It's also been a while since I've heard spreading so I would appreciate if you went at a moderate speed or start slow and build up.
I read mostly phil and theory and some LARP, so I would be most comfortable evaluating those arguments. I will try my best to evaluate any argument you read but I just won't have much prior knowledge for others. For anything you read, don't assume I know what any terms or argument buzzwords mean; make sure to explain and implicate every argument you want me to evaluate both for my understanding but also general good debating.
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have!
daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir
So who is this random guy?
Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)
*PF stuff at the bottom
(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2
Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)
Read bold if you have 5 min before round
Good news: My younger sister is starting middle school debate, so for the first time ever… I’m kind of a quasi-coach.
Bad news: I’m now writing for the Arkansas Razorback affiliate for Sports Illustrated. This means I judge whenever my publisher gives me a weekend off, which is like once in a blue moon.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like captain obvious in that Hotels.com commercial, but say what needs to be said to win the debate. If your 5-minute overview wins the debate, how can I fault you for reading it?
EXPLAIN JARGON! TOP of the NR/2ar should write the ballot for me, slow down, and really emphasize WHY you're winning this debate.
Speed is fine(a little-known fact about me, my fine motor skills aren’t the best due to, well reasons, so if there’s a long TAG, hold your horses and let my hand catch up, yes looking at you K debaters). GO SLOW ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES and on the T debate
No RVI's!(like literally unless the neg reads a million T/Theory shells) That means don't spend 30 seconds of the 1ar reading an RVI, and 2ns STOP spending 2 minutes answering it. I promise I will be as unbiased as humanly possible in every other aspect of the debate. Let me have this one thing. Thanks! If you like to give a 3-minute RVI 2ar on a regular basis PLEASE strike me!
Analytics, send em. thanks. It's beneficial online, you never know when your audio is going to cut out for a split sec, also it's just better for accessibility. No, I'm not interested in publishing your analytics to the internet or sending it around the circuit to screw with you...
A quick word on speaker points: I think they are the worst form of judge intervention possible. My definition of the best debater ever or being "on the bubble" is wildly different than the judge for your next round and the round after that. Both debaters start at 30. Don't be mean. Don't come into the round looking to pick a fight with someone and you should be able to keep that 30.
I don’t care what debate looks like, it’s just that I only understand certain kinds of debate and thus can only (correctly) judge those kinds of debate. If you are comfortable with an incorrect decision, feel free to stop reading and pref me a 1. I would love to say that I have experience with all types of arguments and I’ve spent the last 5 years of my life obsessively cutting cards and reading literature every spare moment I get, the reality is I didn’t. NOT obsessively worrying about the latest development on whatever topic it is for that weekend. As you’ll see down below though, I have done debate before.
*below is how I feel about certain args and how I debated, please don’t be discouraged in running a certain argument based on the info below… I have biases/preferences, we all do, any judge that tells you otherwise is lying.
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality Bad
Politics DA is a thing-x----------------------------Politics DA is not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------x------------Link matters most
Try or die----x-------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption--------------------x------------------ No presumption
Resting grumpy face----------x-------------------Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------x----plz don't
Disclosure Theory-----------------------------x--------------Shut up and deal with it
(Creds to Buntin)
Other Random Stuff and rants
I will not stop a debate just because your opponent has read an author you don't like
I will not vote off anything that breaks the structure of the debate-(ie, speech times don't exist)
False accusations of Racism and Sexism are just as bad as Racism and Sexism itself
That being said... If you feel uncomfortable during a debate, PLEASE say something
role of the ballot = roll of the eyes
Card Dumps are bad. Quality>Quanity PLEASE, I'm BEGGING YOU
keep your own time
extreme clarity when cross applying is key
You have prep. Use it.
Again, Have fun!
PF- Claim Warrant Impact, just like all other debates. I'm about as progressive as they come. 98% of the time I judge LD. That means I have tolerance for speed, plans, CPs, K's, and the whole nine yards. It also means that I have the same evidence standards as your typical circuit LD judge. Paraphrasing does not exist*. Read the card like an LD case if you want me to flow the author names. Otherwise, you are out of luck, Read the card. Send the card. Be as clean as a whistle when asked for the card.
*If it's novice, I'm far more lenient. Have fun.
This paradigm was pretty sparse for a while, but I've decided these are pretty useful.
I debated in policy for four years in high-school. I debated at the University of Oklahoma for 4 years.
***** slow down in online debate.
*** LD Addendum's
I've been judging and coaching LD for about 4-5 years now at this point. I'm relatively cool with whatever you do. Tricks will probably be a harder sell with me, but I have and will vote on it if they're impacted out and made relevant. I probably have a higher inclination to lean towards rejecting the argument rather than the debater in most instances.
Pretty good for T on this topic.
** Most of this stuff is in relationship to policy debate.
Debate is up to the debaters. Do what you will with the debate, I will do my utmost best to evaluate the arguments in front of
I view debate largely as a set of questions I'm asked to resolve. Depending on how I answer those questions my ballot changes. I find debaters who effectively tell me which questions ought to come first, and how answering those questions informs the rest of the debate.
I'd like to think I don't have any wild idiosyncrasies as part of my judge habits, but here are some of my thoughts, they may or may not help you make a decision on where to pref me
1. New Planks in the 2NC are probably bad.
2. I can be persuaded conditionally is bad if the negative gets a little too wild.
DA's][1. These are cool. Specific links are cool, but I understand the game. If you gotta run 10 generic links because the aff is small, then do what you gotta do.
1. I'd like a little more explanation when you make an ontology claim. "Settler-colonialism is ontological," for example, is much more expansive than a 'politics doesn't succeed argument. Explain what you think settler-colonialism is and how it influences society, and then explain why that informs what forms of politics are successful or violent. This will make it much easier to evaluate your argument!
2. Be clear about what your FW argument is. 9/10 times its helpful to be clear.
3. Reference the aff. if I could imagine the 2nc being read against another aff with no changes, then your speaks will reflect that.
4. Permutation is probably not a negative argument.
1. Clear counter-interpretation/Counter-model tends to be a much better way to achieve my ballot than straight impact turns. Explain to me what clash happens in your model of the debate, and why that solves the neg's internal link. However, if the strategy is impact turns then make sure to spend time doing impact calculus.
2. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the performance of the 1ac solved the bad parts of the world. I view K-Aff's much like Policy affs. I.E. Explain how your model of politics would be good if exported.
3. I really do appreciate when teams apply their arguments in interesting and thoughtful ways. Regardless of you making a "new" argument, if you add your own bit of character to the argument I will appreciate the effort.
1. I'm not as bad for FW as my debate choices would indicate. The way to get my ballot in the vein of Michigan GW, lots of clash and debate focused I/L's. Explain why the C/I collapses into an ever expansive interpretation., and why the affirmative can't square the circle of competion.
2. I am a bad judge for FW teams who are dismissive and don't respond to the affirmative. I think negative teams sometimes miss some basic responses to the affirmative in the pursuit of using academic language. Sometimes aff's just assume illogical things that you can point out, even if it seems simple! Don't ever think an argument is too simple or someone's argument sounds too smart to make a basic response!
3. I'm not a good judge for "Truth-testing means no aff"
1. Not my cup of tea, but I'll vote on it. It will be reflected in your speaks tho.
I'm a junior at Columbia University and have run tournaments for the Columbia Debate Society! I did not do debate in high school and thus am not too familiar with LD or PF—though I've judged PF before. However, for the past three years, I've been competing and judging in college debate (American Parliamentary).
As for debating preferences...I love sign-posting and extensive weighing/warranting for your weighing!
Things I love a lot less: spreading, over-emphasis on evidence/"cards," under-emphasis of warranting and logical reasoning, "off-time" roadmaps. But on the whole, I'm pretty accommodating of different debating styles.
Parent of a varsity LD debater and have been judging LD for two years now.
Well versed in traditional debate. I prefer clear and confident communication. Make sure to address your opponents points- both framework and contention, so it becomes easier to evaluate the round. Also make sure to support your arguments with evidence. Simply put, I am willing to evaluate any traditional argument provided it is supported by good evidence and explanation.
Thank you and enjoy your tournament.
Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)
Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com
Phil/Trad - 1
K - 2 or 3
Tricks - 5/Strike
Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.
I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.
I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.
Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.
Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.
I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.
Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.
Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.
Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.
Public Forum Debate
Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.
Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.
Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.
I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.
Lincoln Douglas Debate
I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)
LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round
Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.
Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.
Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.
I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.
Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE
Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.
Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.
Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.
DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.
CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)
Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.
Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.
Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.
I'm a lay judge. Don't spread, and explain your arguments clearly.
- Please share your speeches with me through an email chain or file share (only for national debates)
- I would prefer an off-time road map
- Give me voting issues! Explain why you win.
ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN:email@example.com
PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE. WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE ROOM YOU SHOULD BE READY TO START ASAP.
Background: Did PF in high school, studied econ @ UC Berkeley, been judging for over 3 years now
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one.That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else.You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning,but how you present them certainly matters to mebecause my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier.The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly,TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY!Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friendVishnu'sparadigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Hi, my name is Zee. I'm a parent judge. Don't go too fast and make your arguments clear.
Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I have experience on both the nat and trad circuits. I've dabbled in pf and policy but don't consider myself adept at judging those.
UPDATES FOR TOC: My conflicts are: WDM Valley, Millburn
If there's an email chain, put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.
TLDR - LD
Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!
quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)
2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k
3- pomo k, LARP
for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!
i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.
I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.
I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.
I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.
i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.
Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.
LONG VERSION - LD
- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.
- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.
- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.
- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps
- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.
- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise
- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.
- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.
- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)
- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.
- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI
- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything
- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE
- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle
- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO
- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.
- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.
- see above for my takes on defaults
- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.
- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.
- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best
- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.
- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n
- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.
- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent
- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school
- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil
- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)
- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.
- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.
- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing
- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)
- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss
- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts
- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits
- please weigh strength of link/internal links
- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)
- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes
- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.
- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.
- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact
TLDR - CX
I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)
Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)
- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)
- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both
- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.
- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.
- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity
- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes
Things that can get you higher speaks:
- AUTO 30:doing a question on one of my math/cs psets
- AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
- +1.0: GETTING ME FOOD (protein bars/shakes and anything meat is nice, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
- +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
- +0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
- +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
- +0.5: Reading unique and strategic tricks/theory that I haven't seen before
- +0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
- +0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Office, One Piece, etc.)
- +0.3: Being funny
- +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
- +0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
- Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task
I haven't judged/thought about debate in a little less than a year and I have no clue what the topic is so keep that in mind
I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: email@example.com
Basic Phil: 1
Basic K: 2
Weird Phil/Weird K: 4
Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
First time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, doc sharing would be helpful.
1) 30 speaks if you bring me good food
2) +.5 speaks per minute of speech not used (make sure to let me know).
3) +.5 speaks if you do ad-libs in between each flow
4) Unique debate pickup line in the doc
5) Making the round funny
6) Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
7) Sending all pre-written analytics in the doc
I default not flowing unless said in the speech
Hey, I'm Tommy. I debated for Dulles and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read tricks and theory.
I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.
1 - Theory/T
1/2 - Phil/Tricks
3/4 - Larp/K
Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is.
Phil: I only read Pragmatism and Kant, but I'm familiar with skepticism, hobbes, contracts, Levinas, etc. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. Religious philosophy is really cool.
LARP: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though.
Kritiks: I have an okay understanding of stock kritiks but nothing more than that. I think K tricks are strategic.
Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent, please do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time!
Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)
I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.
For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.
Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - please don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and please make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.
Hello, I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please speak loudly and clearly,
email me your cases before the round begins,
I am a traditional debate judge, not a progressive judge. Please speak clearly, and don't spread.