I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

I'm a current college student and former LD debater who competed nationally and locally in Georgia.

Background: Debated mostly Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School although I did a couple of PF tournaments here and there.

Email: bnq2658@gmail.com

Last Update 11/16/16

Policy Paradigm

Summary: I usually prefer DA Case CP debate but K's are fine if I can understand it. Really don't want to vote on theory though. 

General Things

• I don't take prep for flashing or emailing unless the tournament is running behind or tab is nagging me to get done faster
• Keep the debate calm and more relaxed
• I probably won't look at evidence unless it is specifically indicted or highlighted

China Topic

• I haven't had a lot of experience with this topic so please don't use too many abbreviations and acronyms
• I don't know much about China policy as of this year but I know a good amount of Japanese politics and policy if that helps you at all

Case

• Please don't read an econ impact in front of me if your internal links aren't amazing. I study economics and unless your internal link and solvency cards are by economists with a ton of numbers. I like warming impacts and sciencey impacts like nuclear fusion since they interest me and I would probably more likely to pay attention to them
• I'm getting tired of heavy impact debates and overviews. It seems like most of the time the debate boils down to nothing
• Solvency debates and debates about the actual aff are the most enjoyable for me since they make the debate less generic. They also have to be explained a lot more in detail since I probably won't know it

DA

• I really like DA debates
• The DA debate is probably going to be won or lost at the link level so I would probably focus on that 

Counterplans

• I like CP's but I'm sometimes easily confused about what they do so you have to make it clear in CX or the 2NC as to what it does
• I'm fine with judge kicking the CP even if you don't say it, given you extend case

K's

• I'm very hit or miss when it comes to K's. Often I get very confused by the barrage of information 2N's introduce in the block. Here's my advice if you decide to go for a K in front of me, slow down when you get to the K flow and explain everything as if I've never debated before
• K debates are way too technical and I hate that. Debate the K like how your authors would, slowly and philosophically 
• The link debate is honestly the only important thing about the K debate. If you run a K, I'm pretty much going to agree that you that you will outweigh the aff. I will, however, give you a much higher threshold to meet for the link so you need to spend about 75% of your time on the link debate
• K tricks are stupid and cheap ways to win rounds so I'm probably not voting for them 
• On the aff the first thing you should do is just hammer that 1NC link evidence. It's usually super generic 

T

• I probably won't for T unless it is pretty much obvious that the aff is untopical. I'm probably going to default to reasonability
• If it is a questionable aff, then please make the impacts clear and go slow. 
• If you prove that the aff is untopical but still lose the impact debate then I'll probably still just vote for you

Non-Traditional Arguments

• I honestly don't know how I feel about these since I've only encountered a single unorthodox debate. I would prefer it if your argument is topical
• If you do something really weird I'm probably going to have this confused look on my face and default to the more orthodox team

Theory

I hate voting on theory. Please don't make it a theory debate and if you do slow down. Theory about one specific argument is a reason to reject the argument.

• Word PICs: have to be extremely justifiable
• 50 State Fiat: stupid but not an immediate reason to reject
• International Fiat: good
• Consult and Conditions CP's: depends on the solvency advocate
• Condo: probably won't vote on unless dropped or perfcon
• Multiplank CP's: fine if you have a solvency advocate for each plank
• CP Perms: can make the CP go away, not sure about it as an advocacy
• K Perms: kind of dumb. Just go for the no link

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I have 4 years of experience in pf, ld, impromptu, hi, duo, and oo. I debated in college for Mercer and did parli and policy. If you have any questions about college debate, I am always happy to answer them.

For PF cross ex: I do not flow cross ex, but I do listen. If something important comes up in cross and you want me to weigh it, bring it up in a speech. If someone asks you a question regarding evidence you read in round, DO NOT and I repeat, DO NOT just re-read the card with zero context. If you cannot explain the argument to a five year old, you don't need to be making it.

Tech: Framework is very important to me and you need to explain how you're winning the framework in order to win the round. Generating clear clash is also important, and in the unlikely event that you cannot generate clash, you should clearly explain why you outweigh in terms of impacts. I love clearly articulated links and it makes my job very easy when you give me a weighing mechanism.

Truth: I've seen some k debate happen in ld recently (super interesting, and tbh I'm into it), and should you choose to run one, I'm definitely going to need you to respond to the tech as well as you can. I am totally fine with a k aff. As long as you can be somewhat remotely topical, I will not vote on T. I will often give some credence to truth over tech arguments, but you can't just say it. You have to explain to me why your k outweighs everything else in the round (and I'm a human, so who's to say a little ethos won't be effective?).

Speed is fine, but if you're trying to spread and I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" one time, and if I still can't understand you, I'll just put my pen down until I can.

I love debate and I want you to love debate too. So, do what you do, do it well, and have fun!

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

I am a speech coach in Georgia. I competed in IEs but I can follow debate very well.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - This is the unique feature of LD Debate.  Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF.  Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards. Compete in PF for the debate animal it is.  Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  
• Speed -Since I did not debate in High School, I don't follow speed well. Speak at your own risk, but if I didn't hear it, I don't flow it.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side.  If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• I like clash.  Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen.  Keep your logical fallacies for your next round.  Rhetoric is an art.  
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.  
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.  Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins.  I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges.  I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself.  Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over.  Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life.  Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.  
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Essentially, I am a hybrid judge who likes to see moral clash backed by evidence and reasoning. In my mind, the whole purpose of Lincoln Douglass debate is to read political and economic issues through the schema of moral appraisal. Two things stand as my pet peeves when it comes to debate. Firstly, I am your judge not your referee. Using speech time to complain about your opponent "breaking rules" is a waste of valuable time. Please use your speeches to actually debate. Secondly, morality is not a value, no matter how much everyone in the state of Georgia wants it to be. A synonym for a value is a moral. Moral is a word derived from morality, meaning "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". In essence, please by specific about what value you seek to uphold because if you say it is "morality" I will assume you have no real value for the round.

I believe excellence in debating is the sum of three factors; 1) an organized presentation of compelling research, 2) refuting your opponent’s research, and 3) your presentation style. The rounds I judge will be decided on these factors.

To be successful in Factor #3, consider the following:

a) Do not talk fast (spreading). If you were to do so in a professional debate, your audience will likely get lost and you may lose any leverage over your opponent because your research was not understood by your audience;

b) Tell me what you are about to tell me.  For example, if you are about to tell me your Value, say, "my value is..."  for your Criterion, say, "my criterion is..." and for your contentions, say, "my first contention is...." "my second contention is..." etc.  If you don't do this, I may not recognize what you are saying as any of these things and then I can't give you credit for these aspects of debate.  Likewise, when you are refuting an opponent's contention, it would be beneficial to start by saying something like, "Regarding my opponent's first contention..." so that it is clear to me that you have addressed that contention.

c) Manage your time.  If you are speaking when a timer expires, you may finish your sentence but not start a new one.  Recall that my first factor for excellence in debating is being "organized."  Having rehearsed your talk will ensure that you can complete it in the allocated time.  To go over your time suggests a lack of preparation.  Note that my first factor also states "compelling research."  If you find that any section of your talk slightly exceeds your time allotment, you might consider eliminating parts of the talk that are not "compelling."

d) Engage your audience.  This doesn't mean you should talk loud. Talk at a volume appropriate for your audience to hear you.  Don't yell at your audience.  Consider videotaping yourself giving your talk and look for anything you see yourself doing that you think may be annoying to your audience, suggest that you don't know your material or that you aren't confident about what you are saying.  For example, these things could be considered annoying; if you play with your hair, say "um" a lot, rock back and forth or never look at your audience.  Consider making modifications to your presentation style that will help engage your audience and sell your message.

I have no preference for whether you sit or stand. 

I would like the AFF seated to my left and the NEG seated to my right.

Ld paradigm- 

email: avery.eddy54@gmail.com add me to the email chain yo

Style: I debate LD at Houston County and have qualified for both state and nationals in the activity. I'm comfortable with any style of debate you want to run. On one hand- I do understand the necessity to uphold the "integrity" of the activity through holding it to its roots in traditional debate. On the other- I am a progressive debater by coaching and personally enjoy a good progressive round. I have debated on both the national and lay circuits.

Kritik: I love k's- but I expect them to be run well (except anthro bc duh I'm human anf idc ab animals lol) . I wil ask for your lit at the end of the round if it sounds "fishy" or like you don't know what you're talking about. The advantage of the K is the engagement of dominating ideas and structures. It is not a way to cheat the round. 

Theory: I will vote on theory- once again, if run well

RVI's are weird but I buy them occasionally. Be cautious.

Plans and CPs: plans and counterplans need a clear advocacy.  Ambiguity is bad but if the other team doesn't say that I'll still vote for you. Moral of the story- ask the status of the cp if it seems nebulous and run a t shell OR if you are the one with the nebulous plan/cp... don't do that. I'll be v sad. 

Standing: No standing prefs. Tbh I sit for speeches if the judge will let me so I really couldn't care less where or if you stand, sit, lay etc as long as you aren't standing, sitting, or laying on my laptop or flow. 

Tech>truth but I will buy reasonability in most cases where it is reasonable as long as you or the other team brings it up

speed: I spread. That can either hurt or help you b/c I know how it should sound. Slow down for tags and authors. Always ask the other team if they can handle speed, if they say no, slow down. I will say clead exactly 3 times, after that I doc speaker points and stop flowing. If you spread- you should flash. If you email chain, add me. If you share a speech doc make sure you state what is not read and what is- anything else is cheating plain and simple. 

Speaker points: Because female and minority debaters have been emprically proven to lose points at for aggressive debate- I will add speaker points for your aggression. Don't attack each other. Don't be rude. Attack your arguments. Scream, yell, Alex Jones your way through it. Show me the side of your speaking that prejudice takes away from you.  Reclaim your aggression in this round. 

Lincoln-Douglas (20180301)

Mid-tournament Update: Each of my rounds have come down to having 7-ish reasons for my RFD. I would really love one that gives me like 1-2 key reasons for voting either side up/down. Don't get be so sporadic and lacking of focus towards the end of the debate.

Value Debate: Whichever team wins framework must still prove their impacts solve better under that FW than their opponents'.

Speaking: Speed is whatever. Start slow with the FW talk at the top of the constructive speeches. Be slow on authors.

Answering the constructive speeches: You will get extra speaker points if you actually have direct answers to the AC or proper extensions as AT's... not just cross-applications or make-shift blocks. Same goes for the NC.

I will not weigh an argument in the 2AR that was not extended through the rebuttal and will not weigh any new arguments in the 1NR. New evidence as extensions are allowed in the 1nr, but no new evidence or arguments in the 2AR. However (of course), it is the affirmative's job to tell me not to weigh 1NR arguments that are new.

RUN ANY ARGUMENT YOU WANT. DO IT CONFIDENTLY. I AM A BLANK SLATE.

Pet Peeve: Do not steal prep. Hands off the laptop. Eyes away from the flow/evidence when a timer is not running.

Policy Debate

(10/20/2016)

Debate Experience

I started debating in the 8th grade with the Columbus Urban Debate League, debated 3 years with Columbus High School, and now, I teach middle school debate and judge at high school tournaments.

After trying my best, varsity year, to convince Georgian judges of biopower, I will weigh the debate on ANY argument, so run what you want to.

Speaking

If I cannot understand your spreading, I will not try my best to pull an argument out of it, I will not flow it, and therefore, I will not weigh it at the end of the debate. I do not like to look at ev during or after the debate.

However, I can understand most debaters. Just be light on the nasality if you're a fast one.

Affirmative (Run any case you want, these are my prefs for debate tech.)

If neg drops just ONE argument in the 1NC, and you don't have a turn or link concession to make from it, that arg probably should not be in your 1AC or you need to have better 2A prep. Neg always drops SOMETHING. Utilize it.

I am sympathetic towards smaller 2AC extensions of case, as long as AT Off case was well developed enough. If you do this, then there should be no excuse to lose offense in the 1AR because of time restraints.

Negative (w/ aff frontline notes)

Case

I never see enough case arguments answered in the 1NC. I get it if the aff is crazy, but most of the time, you need to even just make small analyticals that address the larger links and especially inherency. Answering just the impact won't do it for me, sorry.

Off-Case

I'll probably be more excited for a K-FW-T-T debate, but specifics:

Disadvantages

You better convince me your DA links to the aff past the evidential statement of the 1NC. That's fixed by about 5 extra seconds of explanation.

Counterplans

I love to actually hear evidence or just plain reasonable connection to why the CP solves case. I will vote on anything, but please do a good job of explaining why your CP solves the net benefit and/or case. Don't just shout it out and say your actor is better.

I will more than often vote on condtionality for CPs if the aff makes an argument in the standards about the time difference between making the 1AC and whipping a CP out of the file list.

Topicality/Theory

Love me a good flow battle here.

IF YOU ARE AFFIRMATIVE AND CORRECTLY CARRY OUT A COUNTER-VIOLATION, I LOVE YOU.

Kritiks

Rejecting the aff is ok to me as an alternative. Just explain in plain words why that will aid your advocacy and debate/people/whoever as a whole.

Link debate better be huge. I want examples from the 1AC on why your kritik links. Generic link ev won't flow alone.... unless the other team let's it, then so be it.

If you are running a 1-off or 2-off based on kritikal arguments, for the love of Yaweih, do not get overwhelmed by case. In the 1NC, just start cross applying your kritikal evidence as answers to each and every 1AC argument which you do not have evidence to answer.

Best for Last: Framing/Framework

I love love love to know how I'm weighing. Not much to say; I lean towards nothing but persuasion here.

BACKGROUND

I'd say an unique route lead me to high school speech/debate. Started off as an attorney in Florida, but numerous circumstances led me to teaching in 2011. I'm now Carrollton High School's Assistant Speech/Debate Coach. I've watched a lot of rounds (LD and PF), but I'm still learning.

FRAMEWORK

It's important. Don't abandon it. That being said, in LD I don't need a million sources on values/criterion/observations that say the same thing. Also, not every word in the resolution needs to be defined unless this will be critical to assumptions made in the round (kritik). I prefer substantive debate. Also, I'm used to GA LD cases being set up with value, criterion, contentions, but I can still other case formats. For PF, if you you want me to evaluate framework, make sure you extend it throughout the round and explain why it is more important than the oppositions.

EVIDENCE

Preparing blocks with quality evidence is crucial to a good debate. Also, don't forget warrant and impact for every claim. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

THEORY SHELLS/PERFORMANCE/Ks

Sometimes debaters ask me how I feel about this. I'm open to all forms of good debate. Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

EVALUATING THE ROUND

Please give voters/impacts in summary (LD) and final focus (PF) to narrow round down to crucial areas. If argument was dropped, tell me how/why important to the round instead of "well they dropped it, so flow the argument to me." Also, please signpost/road map. I like a nice organized flow and don't like getting bounced around. Finally, I do evaluate statements made in cross.

PROCEDURE

Speed/spreading is fine unless lack of breath support/stammering over words is distracting. Speed is fine, but clarity is important. As far as sitting/standing, I would prefer you stand, except debaters in PF grand cross.

CIVILITY

Please don't be rude to your opponent. You all are very smart, but smart doesn't entitle you to talk to people way you feel like. You can be polite and firm/assertive at the same time. Also, I will stop a debater for making any discriminatory remarks.

DISCLOSURE/FEEDBACK

I usually disclose, but sometimes I like to sit alone with my flow after the round and write out a thorough reason for decision and provide clear written feedback rather than oral. I promise to be thorough and apologize if this is not your preference.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I'll close with guaranteeing that I will always give you my absolute focus and best efforts to flow well so my decision will be based on my flow and not any personal bias. I look forward to being your judge today:)

I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and judged for 5 years (various events). I am a pre-law junior at the University of Georgia with a major in English and minor in Philosophy in the hopes of being a lawyer in the Air Force (JAG).

• I enjoy structured, stimulating, and thoughtful debates. As a competitor, I would hope that you care about the reception of your case as much as you care about winning.

• Please do not treat debate as a monolith: have fun and push the boundaries. Any “wild” strategy you want to try is welcome and I encourage you to do so. If you are on your third round of the day and are beginning to feel spent, imagine how a judge might feel. Allow me to enjoy your speech fully and try to stray away from pre-made cases that always seem to miss an integral part of your speech--you.

• Because of the comment above, I expect debaters to bow heavily to the art of speech. Not only do I want you to be clear, coherent, and concise (they aren’t synonymous, trust me), but I want you to be persuasive. If you give a speech and think to yourself, “I wouldn’t vote for a president if they spoke like that”, then I’m going to have a hard time voting for you as well. I don’t expect you to be prepared for presidency while you’re still in high school, but I expect you to portray/feign the same skill they have: confidence. Speak as fast as you want, but if you haven’t practiced enough in order to guarantee that you are still presenting a thoughtful speech, rethink your strategy.

Claim. Link. Warrant. Impacts. Throughout the entirety of your case, I will always look for these. No single facet is more important than the other, so I expect there to be heavy thought put into these categories. Understand that anyone can read an evidence card and that when you don’t apply links and warrants to your claim, you remove your agency in the matter. Own your case. Your opponent as well as myself are capable of reading your cards, you have the power to make them meaningful to your position.

Framework: If your competing in Lincoln-Douglas, I can not stress the importance of framework debate (unless you have explicitly stated otherwise it being a non-issue).

Philosophy: True to the minor that I am studying, I enjoy philosophy. I would love to see some in your cases, but will be

I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.

The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.

That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.

I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.

Ø Background: I have debated for four years. I won two district tournaments. I competed in “first and second” Year State and Varsity State debate. I have debated in all styles of debate (PF, Policy, and LD). I also did exempt and impromptu.

Ø Preferences: The value and value criterion are what make LD so unique. Choose it wisely and make sure they link to your arguments.

Ø Speed – I good with spreading, but if you sound like you’re choking, you’re doing it wrong. I’ll ask for you to slow down.

Ø How to win? – Attack the arguments, not the debater. Based on how the arguments ended up on the flow. Who had more clash? Who extended their arguments? Who gave the most convincing voters? Have strong arguments that tie into your value and value criterion. Show impacts. Really, extend arguments. Don’t drop them!

o When I choose who wins, don’t argue with my final decision and try to convince me someone else won.

Ø K’s/Theory: I am not super familiar with them. I’ve run a few, but if you run this, show me clearly why I should vote for this. You should be making the connections and giving the reasoning, not me.

Ø CP: Show link, brink, and impact. If you run a plan without explaining implementation but have clear impacts and explain it’s feasible, I’ll still take it (unless the opponent successfully argues against it). You don’t need an entire laid out plan of implementation. What you NEED to shows is how the plan is feasible and clear impacts of what you’re achieving. (Ex: Plan - to give everyone in Georgia public schools a computer. You prove we clearly have the money somehow, then you don’t need to prove how the distribution of every single computer will occur. As long as the funds are proven, the rest is theoretical and philosophical). This is what is unique about LD because you don’t have to show an exact implementation plan text like policy debate. This is LD. Show me a philosophy debate, not a policy debate. Obviously, you still have to show impacts and how the plan links.

Ø Case tips: Know your case! Read over it. Have thorough research. Pre-written blocks seriously help. Also, don’t pull cards from 1960 about America’s financial state and then try to argue that that’s America’s financial state today.

o Make contentions and sub-points clear with tag lines (Main claim)

Ø Technique: CLASH! Go down the flow. Being organized by going down the flow makes it easier on everyone to see where you are in your arguments.

o Look at me not your opponent. You’re trying to persuade me, not your opponent. I’m fine while you’re reading your case to not maintain eye contact. I get it. Cases are like 8+ pages long. Let’s be real, most people don’t memorize that. But, during CX and rebuttals try to make eye contact unless you’re reading cards.

Ø Technology: If you read from your phone, put it on airplane mode. You can’t be looking up new information during the debate. You need to have cards ready beforehand. Even if someone runs something that seems outlandish, this is part of developing the skill to make clever arguments and to find holes in your opponent’s case. BUT, if the argument is really a stretch and no one is getting anywhere because of the argument (Ex: like the extinction of the human race on an issue that wouldn’t logically cause that), I’ll consider dropping the plan/argument for maximizing education.) If your computer stops working for some reason and you didn’t also print paper copies, I’ll ask if the opponent wants to give you a case to run. If they object, which they have the right, you lose. I can’t make another case magically appear. It’s only fair to choose this way.

Ø And of course. . . HAVE FUN! You can learn so much from debate whether you lose or win. J Your opponent can also be a great new friend! Be kind and have fun!

* I prefer a conversational-paced debate. If you are going to spread, do it well. I do not judge what I do not clearly understand.

* I prefer solvency to be used together with philosophy.

* I have been judging for four years, but I am a parent judge. If you are running complicated cases, do not assume I have background to understand all debate terminology or philosophy. Please "unpack" what you mean into language a lay person is sure to understand.

* I generally prefer more traditional debate to very progressive debate. With that said there have been times I've voted for a more progressive case, if it was explained well and the debater made the best argument.

* I do not tolerate discrimination (sexism, racism, etc.). You will not win a case I am judging by using philosophical, moral or any other arguments to promote discrimination.

* I do consider cross-X to be part of the judged debate for speaker points. I generally do not judge cross-X for the winner or loser of the debate - therefore, be sure to flow any important points into the round. I do NOT care if you look at each other during cross-X or not.

* Please keep your own time and time your opponent. I do use a timer as well, but have occasionally had a glitch and we want a fair round. Within reason, feel free to complete your sentence once time is up. If an opponent asks a question during cross-X and then time is up, it is your choice if you want to answer that question or not.

* Expect things like eye contact with the judge, voice intonation, covering your face with paper or computer while speaking, nervous habits such as clicking pens/rocking to all be factored into your speaker points.

* I do prefer that you ask if the judge and opponent are ready before beginning. Also, I prefer you give an off-time road map in rounds where it is appropriate.

* Normally, I will vote for any argument if it not addressed by the opponent and is flowed through the rounds. However, if your facts are blatantly false and easily confirmable as false, I will not weigh the argument. Please make sure your research is warranted and accurate.

* I do NOT have preferences on if you debate standing or sitting or if you sit on a particular side.

* If you want to email your cards or constructive to your opponent that is your choice. However, I will not accept emails and only judge what I hear and understand from the actual debate. The one exception is if I feel I need to ask for cases or cards after the round is complete to double check my understanding of key points in order to make the best decision.

I am a 3rd year LD debater and a senior in high school. I have no prior judging experience but have been exposed to many different styles of debate over the last 3 years. I'm pretty laid back overall, and I will disclose who won and give advice after the round unless I am directly told not to do so. What you tell me to value, either implicitly or explicitly, (within reason) is what I will value in the round. If you don’t tell me explicitly what to value and why, however, I will use impact analysis as I see the round to decide who wins. Also, don’t just tell me what to value, but why this specific impact or precedent actually matters in the first place.

Theory: I am not a huge fan of theory debate, but I will not hold this against you if you choose to run this type of argument. Just make sure it makes sense and you support all points you make.

-      The role of the ballot can be redefined, but understand your opponent may do the same. Ultimately, whoever most effectively argues what the role of the ballot should be and why will decide its role. I don't anticipate many debates going this way, but just in case this is what you should refer to.

-      Make sure your arguments are actually factual in regard to what you and your opponent are supposed to do. If you start making up rules in the middle of the debate to make it easier for you to win, I will not consider these points even if your opponent doesn’t contest them.

Framework: This is a very important aspect of LD; indeed, this is one aspect not shared by any other form of debate. Debates can be won or lost here. Make sure your framework addresses the resolve and links very well into your contentions and other evidence. I enjoy framework debates, and I see them as incredibly important to how I should assess the rest of your argument in the first place. Make sure your Value and Value Criterion relate. Specifically, your Value Criterion should be how you achieve/realize/view your Value; make sure this is clear.

Contentions: Just don't commit logical fallacies. If your opponent doesn't call you on them I won’t explicitly hold this against you, but it will diminish your speaker points.

Other:

-      I hate spreading. I cannot understand it, and I don't see it as being conducive to the point of Lincoln Douglas debate. This activity is important because it teaches you to convince others, speak well in public, and gives you a greater understanding of the issues you are presently debating. I do not see spreading as conducive to any of these goals, and therefore I will not flow if you are spreading. Talking fast, however, is fine. Worst case scenario I will tell you to slow down, but I don't imagine this will be a problem.

-      Conceding points is not always a bad thing. If your opponent says the sky is blue, I will not hold it against you if you don’t argue this. Keep in mind you don’t have to specifically refute your opponents evidence, but rather the point they make with that evidence/how it relates to their case and the resolve. If you are going to concede something, however, it is best to simply state that you agree to that point and why. Regardless of the point in question, dropping arguments means that your opponent won on that arg. Do not drop an argument in one speech and then attempt to bring it up in other. It is unlikely I will consider this and it will waste your time.

-      Be respectful and have fun.

ffiliation: Houston County High School, Mercer University

"I'm not a cop" was what one of my favorite coaches told me when I asked him how he evaluated round. I'd like to think that I can function under the same paradigm. Usually if I'm judging you or someone you know, I would like to think that I'm not here to save any fictional lives, rather I would like to think that for the two hours we have together maybe we can have a discussion that a accomplishes a little more than the heg/ptx debate that you've probably had for like the last four years. That being said, if you are a fan of that then you do you, I'll try my best to evaluate the arguments but you should probably know that I'll be very lenient on the K and my threshold for policy framework may not be where you want it.

If you didn't know I am currently a project debater and I would like to think that I care for this activity and hope to see it grow. That being said, I think that I've been told for so long that my job in the back of the room was simply to evaluate arguments but I think as debaters we can evolve past that simple game and maybe do something productive with the time we have together? I know quite a few people that have gotten scholarships from their work in debate, and that's great for them but I'd like to think that if anyone were dedicating this much time to an activity then maybe we can make it count. 

But in general do what you want to do for the next two hours or so, but I think it would just be fair to warn you that my ability to evaluate the case v. ptx debate isn't that great because my ballots in those rounds just feel really ironic. 

Also, I reserve the right to vote you down on racist, sexist, and/or homophobic language. Elijah Smith does the same thing, and I think having that rule is probably good for the activity.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Mark Winokur (he/him/his)

For the email chain: mark.s.winokur@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL THOUGHTS

Hey there thank you for reading my paradigm! First off a brief blurb about me for some context -- I competed in LD for Midtown High School for four years from 2014- 2017 and graduated college in 2021. As a debater, I competed mostly on the traditional GA circuit but also attended camp and competed in several national tournaments. After taking a 6 year hiatus (more or less) from the debate community, I have more recently judged at two tournaments this year (Midtown High and Emory Barkley Forum).

Above all, I encourage you to defend the arguments that speak to you and in the style that suits your strengths. I assure you this approach will be the most rewarding to you as a debater, and will make a much stronger impression than appeasing to the arguments and debate styles you think I will like based on my perceived preferences. I am most impressed by debaters who give a glimpse into what fuels their fire- so defend the arguments you would stand behind outside of the round, that you have passion for beyond their instrumental value as a route to the ballot. Put away your Pessimism K if you're thinking about running it merely to evade the 1AC impacts, without having given that perspective serious consideration in your day-to-day life outside of the debate space.

Further, do not underestimate the human element that plays into the art of persuasion! Despite my endeavor to be a "tabula rasa" judge, by virtue of being human not a robot, it is inevitable that the presentation of your arguments- i.e. word choice, concision, organization of ideas, extent of filler words, and even stylistic elements such as eye contact, gestures, and inflections of tone -will exert some influence over my evaluation of the round, even if they do not surface as tangible factors guiding my decision on the flow. The more you enable me to feel the full force of the position you stand for, the more likely I will be to resolve the round in your favor, so use that to your advantage! By the same token, I am much more receptive to developing a cohesive, fleshed-out position to paint a compelling picture of the round, rather than going 6-off guns blazing while hiding behind underdeveloped arguments that lack internal consistency.

And finally, although debate is an inherently competitive activity, please be kind and compassionate toward your opponent. I value debaters who foster a collaborative environment by stimulating meaningful engagement of the topic- not debaters who deliberately confuse their opponent or bait them into conceding a hidden argument that supersedes everything else in the round.

PRESENTATION & PROCEDURAL ISSUES

-Keep your speed to 300 wpm tops. I would strongly advise against 100% spreading (350+ wpm). I would also recommend that your speed be inversely proportionate to the complexity of arguments you are making. Additionally, please do not spread if you cannot articulate clearly. I have a high threshold for clarity and will say clear if I cannot understand what you are saying.

-In any regard, I would prefer for you to email me your case and any other pre-written arguments on an email chain. If you are spreading, this is mandatory, and you must also share what you are reading to your opponent. I will not evaluate any arguments you spread if your opponent does not have access to them (including cards read in rebuttals).

-Sign posting is very important for me. I need to know where to write your arguments on the flow.

-I will let you time yourself on phone, however I can keep time if you would prefer.

-Flex prep is okay with me.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT

-In general, I prefer truth testing as the role of the ballot, but if you run a plan with a stable advocacy, then no need to argue comparative worlds- I will assume as much. Of course, you're always welcome to explicitly defend comparative worlds knowing that I may be relatively quick to pull the trigger on arguments in favor of truth testing, but this is not mandatory by any means.

-If your case does not lend itself to truth testing or comparative worlds (i.e. a K aff that does not defend the resolution) then you will need to explicitly defend a ROB, otherwise I'll just assume truth testing and exclude anything that doesn't link to that. In other words, the only ROBs I am willing to infer are truth testing and comparative worlds- if it's anything else you will need to clearly delineate your ROB so I know how to evaluate your offense.

FRAMEWORK DEBATE

-Love it! Did a lot of this in high school so I feel decently comfortable about this area of debate.

-I will default to epistemic confidence, unless I deem the framework debate to be either extremely close or a wash in which case I will switch to epistemic modesty (but epistemic confidence over modesty).

-I enjoy comparative interaction between frameworks. I'm not a fan of reading generic cards from backfiles or generic "x theory bad" arguments. I like analytic responses that engage with the logical reasoning behind the opponent's syllogism (i.e. exposing fallacies, disproving assumptions or showing that the framework's conclusion does not follow from the premises).

KRITIKS

-This is another area of debate I really enjoy! Especially because Kritiks encourage debaters to challenge their assumptions, a valuable skill which enables us to re-evaluate our perspective in our everyday lives and engage with the world in new ways. However, I do not have a strong background in K philosophy so I recommend that you present your arguments in a way that would resonate with someone who is learning about the subject area for the first time. Don't throw a bunch of buzzwords around and expect I will understand what you are talking about (and even if I do I won't connect the dots for you if you can't clearly articulate the substance of the arguments on your own).

-The ROB in your K does not serve as a replacement for framework. You don't need to explicitly state "my standard is x" in your K but you need to provide some philosophical analysis that speaks to what impacts I should deem as relevant just like any other type of case. Reading a cap K arguing cap bad because it causes poverty without any theoretical backing to justify why that matters is impact justified and does not help me understand why I should reject the logic of capitalism.

-Kritikal affirmatives are fine. Just be clear to articulate the different layers of the case and what offense is pre-fiat/performative vs. post-fiat, whether you defend the resolution etc.

LARP DEBATE IN GENERAL

-I was not great at LARP debate in high school to begin with, and 6 years later I will struggle even more with resolving these types of rounds. Also, I'm generally not a fan of these cases because 1) I find that aggregative util/cost benefit frameworks tend to be poorly justified and 2) advantages/disads tend to be lacking in link threshold analysis. A good advantage or DA should show that we are at the tipping point such that the impact of A is sufficient to trigger B, which would move the needle to the tipping point such that the effect of B would bring about C, and so on throughout the chain leading up to the terminal impact. By contrast, amalgamating evidence to show A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and D causes [really bad thing] doesn't persuade me that A will lead to [really bad thing]. I will certainly make my best effort to resolve these kinds of rounds without intervention, but will be quick to pull the trigger on arguments that poke holes at either the framework or link threshold analysis especially given my lack of propensity for this style of debate in the first place.

COUNTERPLANS

-Running a CP does not get you out of responding on the line by line against the AC. I find that when many debaters run a counterplan, they will simply respond to the AC by cross-applying their own case and saying that it solves better. While this may be true, it is preferable to make specific solvency takeouts to the aff and engage with their arguments directly to disprove their case.

-If you are arguing against a counterplan, don't just say "perm do both." Please show a clear net benefit to the perm. Demonstrating that the neg isn’t mutually exclusive is not sufficient as there may be a disadvantage to doing both.

DISADVANTAGES

-Stock DAs grounded directly in the topic literature are ok, I'm less of a fan of politics DAs and other types of DAs that are not relevant to the core issues of the resolution (i.e. the aff prevents a bill from being passed through Congress which causes extinction, etc.).

-I prefer impacts with higher probability over magnitude. I do not enjoy hearing DAs with long link chains where the probability of the terminal impact is minuscule.

THEORY

-To vote on theory, I need to be convinced that there is an actual in-round abuse. Theory should not be used as a strategic tool; please reserve theory for arguments that you genuinely cannot engage with on substance.

-I am not great at resolving theory, so if you do find that you are forced to engage in a theory debate, then please present your arguments in the simplest way possible to help me understand how your opponent's strategy is problematic and why it is a voting issue. While I understand the basic structure of a theory shell, if you bombard me with blippy or highly technical arguments then I probably struggle to follow along.

TRICKS DEBATE

-Consider striking me if this is your thing. This is probably the only style of debate I would say to avoid outright - I am not experienced at all in these kinds of arguments so I will be lost if you do this in front of me.