Background / Top-Level stuff

tl;dr My pronouns are he/him. Do whatever you want. I’ll probably be down with it. More information found below. For people who want some experience, here’s the lowdown for me: four years HS LD for Gig Harbor. I was in a lot of bid rounds my senior year but I never won any. I was pretty successful on my local circuit. I was assistant coach at Gig Harbor for a year. We qualled a debater to the TOC. I spent three years competing in NPTE/NPDA Parli for Western Washington University debating on the national circuit where I was pretty successful. I also spent a year doing NDT/CEDA policy where I qualified to the NDT during my first (and only) year.

The Big Picture

Do whatever you want. I know pretty much every judge who wants to be preffed high says that, but that’s probably because every judge thinks they’re super chill and down for anything, and I'm not any different. I can’t tell you with absolute certainty if I’ll vote on your arguments when you read them because I think the idea of a syncretic judging philosophy that’s internally coherent is nonsensical. We all have biases or understandings of the way that certain arguments work, so instead of trying to tell you something like “I’m a flex judge” or “I’m a policy judge” or “I’m a clash of civs judge” or another equally meaningless turn of phrase, I’ll just tell you about how I think debate is/should work and you can decide whether or not you want me in the back of the room based on how much that conforms to your expectations/beliefs about the activity, or your strategic preferences. To clarify; almost everything in my philosophy is subject to change based on the stuff that you do/say in your rounds (i might think that presumption flips neg, but if you can explain to me why it flips aff i'll still vote on it), but I’ve found as a competitor that confronting arbitrary biases or argumentative tendencies in a judge philosophy tend to be helpful in navigating in-round conduct, so here’s the quick hits. Most of these won’t matter because these are defaults that can easily change every round based on the arguments that you tell me matter.

- I'm not paradigmatically opposed to speed, but I think online debate should usually a bit slower than IRL policy, so you might want to start at like 75% of your max speed and work your way up to like 85% to give me time to adjust. Slowing down for tags / repeating texts and interps is also good, especially if you're not flashing or emailing.

- Condo is good

- Competing interps is the best way to evaluate theory

- Kritiks are great, but I strongly prefer durable, aff-specific links ("you use the state" or "you are the usfg" are not super compelling to me)

- Theory for strategic purposes is fine. I don’t need to see proven abuse.

- I like it when the aff is topical, but it doesn't have to be for me to vote aff

- Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

- PICs probably aren’t cheating

- Spec is usually bad for debate (but that's never stopped me from reading it, so it shouldn't stop you either)

That’s not to say you can’t read arguments contrary to my beliefs but just know that it’ll be more of an uphill battle than it might be for other stuff. If you make arguments, I’ll vote on them as best I can. There are a few things that I paradigmatically believe in.

- Transphobia/ableism/racism/misogny is bad. Don’t do any of those or I’ll drop you.

- 2AR/2NR theory is a silly silly argument, and I will not evaluate it unless given a VERY compelling reason to (usually it has to do with one of the above things).

- I won’t dock you speaks for clarity but I will yell clear if you’re being unclear.

- Don’t use speed as a tool to exclude your opponents; we've all been the novice who gets six off read against them. If they ask you to slow down a little bit, please accommodate or your speaks will probably tank.

Other than that, go nuts.

Topic Debate / Policy stuff

I was never much of a policy-type debater in high school. Since I did LD, I would mostly defend whole res and read a big framework and like two cards that functioned as framework links to the topic. I’ve defended specific plan texts a lot more in my last two years of parli competition which have turned me into a big fan of more technical policy-oriented debate. The biggest place I think I depart from most judges is insofar as I have a pretty high threshold for try-or-die as a legitimate argument in the face of terminal defense absent winning some framing questions for why your impacts come first. In those sorts of situations, I’m willing to vote negative on presumption (but only if the argument is made). Since I haven’t really prepped any teams this last year, I’m not super up-to-date on the topic lit in high school policy or whatever the current LD topic is, so my threshold for link and uniqueness explanation is probably a little bit higher than the judges you see at every other tournament, but I’ll try to evaluate things fairly.

As far as negative strategy goes, I think counterplans are very strategically underutilized tool. I don’t necessarily think you need to be textually competitive or unconditional or whatever norms exist right now, and am very amenable to CP solves case + net benefit / disad strategy. I don’t get to see these arguments very often in NPDA/NPTE since there’s a very noticeable skew towards the K at the highest level in those circuits, so a good deployment of these sorts of arguments will probably net you high speaks because I like to see novel things.

The K

The K was my go-to negative strategy in high school, but I would mostly read stuff like Nietzsche, Derrida, or Heidegger, not stuff that’s super popular nowadays. As far as stuff I’ve been doing more recently in NPDA/NPTE, and later in NDT/CEDA, it’s mostly Fanon, Agamben, Marx, Black Marx, Semiocap, and D&G. I only have some passing familiarity with things like Baudrillard and Wilderson, but that shouldn’t stop you from reading those arguments in front of me if you want to. Just know that with the K more than with something like a topical policy aff you run the risk of me just being confused and voting on bad arguments your opponents make which misrepresent your position. Don’t assume that I know your authors or whatever -ologies you’re using to justify the framework of the K.

Since I’ve been out of the circuit for a minute, I’m not super up-to-date on the most popular trends in terms of arguments read, so slow down a bit when you read tags and try to maintain clarity when you’re reading super dense evidence about whatever undergirding philosophy your authors are talking about

As far as structural stuff goes, I think that a lot of debaters get by on really lazy link scenarios – I don’t love seeing stuff like “you use the state” on a biopolitics kritik and am usually willing to look other places on the flow if I can do so without intervening. On the same note, links of omission suck and you all can do better than that. Talk about why the aff is bad. Most affs are going to do or say something bad. It’s not that much to ask.

As far as the permutation goes, I default to the perm being a test of competition, and absent some specific framing argumentation, I don’t think that there is sticky offense that can be generated on the perm since it isn’t an advocacy.

On the K v K debate – I tend to believe in my heart of hearts that non-topical affs shouldn't get access to a perm. I think that you get a perm to hedge against counterplans that solve the aff plus other stuff that are not competitive on their own – things like Plan Plus or Alt Actor CPs. You’re constrained to the topic, and absent a permutation, the negative would always win by saying “Do the aff plus give everyone a puppy with a net benefit of cuteness”. If you elect to reject the topic, it doesn’t make sense to me to also give you access to a permutation since you could have read the negative strategy on the affirmative without the constraints of the topic. This is not to say I’ll drop you if you go for the perm in a K v K, or that I think you should not read a perm in a KvK debate (you should! the perm is a good argument!), but I’ll be sympathetic to arguments that say you don’t get access to one, and that's a bias that you should be aware of if you're going to be explicitly non-topical.

On a similar note, I’ve found that teams often do a poor job of explaining or generating competition between K affs and K alts and want to especially stress what I mentioned above about making clear and specific link scenarios between your alt and the affirmative in the K v K debate. Try not to make it messy.

Theory and Procedurals

Everybody’s favorite. I default to no RVIs, drop the debater, competing interps, and fairness and education mattering. I'can't recall ever hearing a super compelling argument for why fairness should be a terminal impact instead of just a side-constraint on education, but won't ignore you if you say fairness is the only terminal impact. These defaults usually don’t matter because debaters tend to make arguments that would either confirm or override these defaults. I also err heavily towards using the interp that I have flowed when deciding the round unless a text of the interp has been flashed/emailed/passed to me by the team who read it which has also been made available to the other team. If I wasn’t able to flow your interp, and your specific wording matters, then your opponent probably couldn’t either, and were at a competitive disadvantage as a result. Not much more to say here.

If you have any questions, feel free to fire away. You can message me on facebook or just ask me before the round starts. I'm an open book.

Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

Freshman at Harvard, 4 years debate experience in high school cx, read mostly critical arguments and a k aff, love the k if you tell me exactly what in the overview you want me to cross apply onto the lbl and hate the k if it's a mess with an 8 min overview, love straight-up debate if flows are clean and the 1nc is interesting and disads have specific links & hate straight-up debate if all your disads are generic af

My fav debates to judge are k on k and I really enjoy critical argumentation w/ a performative aspect

this is the first tournament I'm judging on this topic, so if you're doing hyperspecific case/da work, explain the ticky tacky things to me

speed is fine, but be clear

speaker points: generally 28-29

1. K & K aff: totally fine, i love good critical debate, but debating the k is not an excuse for no line by line; do whatever you want on aff as long as you do it well--terrible k affs are terrible

2. Fwk: debate is probably a game but that doesn't mean there aren't ethical considerations/ just bc debate is a game doesn't mean the rules can't change. winning debate is a game doesn't win you the round against a k aff automatically, and if that's the top of your 2nr I will be annoyed; otherwise, I will vote on fwk. Loving/reading the k aff has actually made me particularly unsympathetic to bad k affs that don't have an angle on fwk, which is like, most of them

2. Topicality: will vote on it, have a high threshold

3. Theory: will vote on it, will be annoyed at listening to too much theory

4. Case debate: do it

5. Cross-ex is important

6. Don't be an asshole--unless they were assholes first, in which case, feel free.

Michael Elizondo

4th year debating for the University of Washington. Some things about how I debate that might help you out: I've ran both plan and planless affs (and currently don't read a plan). I usually go for the K or FW in the 2NR. I don't have a preference for arguments but I do have a preference for what I spend my time researching on, which is primarily identity politics and telling teams why they could have been topical.

Tag-team C-X is permitted.

You have 8 minutes of prep.

Speaker Points: I believe that speaker points should not just be a reflection of argument strength and strategic choice, but also on clarity, consistency, and the ability to persuade. Debate is still an activity about communication.

There is no such thing as a tabula rasa judge (sorry not sorry), so here are my defaults:

Affirmatives should defend a topical plan. Likewise, FW/T is a viable and important strategy against non-topical teams and should be viewed as such, regardless of which side of the spectrum you are on.

Negatives are allowed conditional advocacies, and personally, I don’t mind if they contradict in the 1NC. Making choices is what the block is for.

Not a huge fan of theory debates because they quickly devolve into cheap shots and one liners. If you are going for a theory argument, put some work on it otherwise, don’t waste your speech time and make better arguments.

I tend to think that nuclear war is a rather important impact, and that the aff gets to weigh the case against the K.

Tend to think that the permuation in K debates doesn’t get you very far unless you have some fire evidence that specifically advocates for the permutation. I'm not saying don't go for it but I am saying that if the neg provides an adequate response then the 2AR needs to either be focused on the perm or realize that they have to win another place on the flow i.e. case outweighs/alt fails/impact turn to the K.

This is my first year as assistant coach of policy debate at Garfield High School (Seattle, WA), and my first year of experience with policy debate. I have been a policy judge at four Washington circuit tournaments so far this year, so I am now reasonably comfortable with this year's topic. I consider myself to be a tabula rasa judge, meaning that I am comfortable with all types of arguments. I will equally consider policy or critical arguments on the affirmative or negative. Be sure that you are giving me strong criteria by which to judge the round, as well as good impact calculus and weighing of arguments. The more explicit you are in framing the debate for me, the less likely it is for there to be surprises about my decision.

That said, I do not have a strong background in critical theory so you should be sure to fully explain any critical arguments that you make in lay terms. I also appreciate if you slow down for me, particularly when making quick analytical arguments (e.g. theory) and for your tags.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round, to get more specific information about my thinking. However, I really do try to make the round about the arguments that you want to run rather than my own biases. Just make sure that you account for my relative newness to the activity, in terms of making sure that you fully explain your arguments rather than relying on debate abbreviations or catchy terms from critical theory.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

*last updated March 2018

please add me to the email chain! zmagdb8[at]gmail.com

-Ingraham High School policy coach (2016-)

-Part-time University of Washington novice policy coach (2017-18)

-University of Washington alumni (3 years policy, 2014-2017)

-Puyallup High School alumni (3 years policy, 2010-2013)

general things:
- talk to me before round if you have specific questions about my philosophy or need accommodation
- i like the debate. i want rounds to be enjoyable for both teams -- you should read arguments that you are most comfortable with
- respect your partner and your opponents. don't prevent others from debating. don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.; by extension don't make or attempt to justify those arguments
- to me debate is primarily an educational space but it is also a competitive space. what you say is important and it's how i make what i think is the best decision
- i'm pretty bad at summarizing my rfd so i will happily answer any questions you may have concerning it, or the round in general
- please don't cheat -- card-clipping, prep-stealing, flipping ahead in speech docs, etc. are things that i notice and will negatively affect your speaks / please don't make me call it out

Hello I am currently with University of Washington Policy Debate team on my fourth year.

Here is mostly my policy philosophy – it can be applied to other forms of debate though.

Congress is a little different – don’t give speeches to just give a speech – make them good otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time. Add something new to what has already been said and ask good questions. Know what you are talking about so you can answer questions.

Did a mix of soft left and straight up policy stuff for 3 years and now I am doing critical debate. 

I am willing to vote either way and generally think the role of the ballot is to determine the team that debates the best but if dropped I am willing to accept any other role. However role of the judge is always up for debate and something I think should be used instead. 

If you aren't T just say why what you are doing is more important and causes better education you couldn't have had otherwise. If you are going for topicality you need to have a clear impact and good TVA. 

I think that whatever you decide to do you need to have impacts and why you win because of those impacts.

Statements are not arguments unless they contain a claim and a justification for that claim.  “They dropped it” is not a justification. “Extend what my partner said” is not an argument. The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I find it difficult to endorse positions that require black-boxing to model.

For theory have an interpretation of what they should be able to do - for example, condo is a voter they get 1 CP and 1 K they read 3 CPs - I am much more willing to vote on theory args when framed like this because then they aren't so general. Also you need reasons why your interpretation is better.

If you don’t like my decision debate better – if you don’t want judge intervention do all the work for me and make it clear about when, where, and how I should vote. I may have some biases but I always evaluate the debate in front of me. If what you are saying isn't true it is probably going to be held to a hire standard than if it is clearly true. 

DON’T GO FOR THE BUFFET! As a debater you have to make decisions, sometimes they are the right one and sometimes they are wrong. Going for the buffet is ALWAYS the wrong one. The best way to lose a debate you are winning is to go for everything. I want depth especially in the last speeches if you want decent speaker points and want to win.

Don’t read new off in the 2NC – you’ll have this problem that you seem to forget there was a 1NC because they read some arguments on what you said. Answer their stuff on the line by line. If you want to read new things read add ons – so often people read add ons but then spend forever reading more cards about an uncontested impact that happens – use your time wisely – engage in the debate that is in front of you, not the one your coach prepped you for because you can’t know everything that is going to happen in the round, sometimes you need to read new cards and sometimes you don’t!

 If you are engaging well with the other team and what they are saying you will get higher speaker points.

Any questions email me @ rebeccapetrone96@gmail.com or ask before round!
 

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

Updated: Dec 13, 2016

I currently coach at Vashon High School. A long time ago I coached policy debate at Gonzaga University and Western Washington University. I took a break to work for a private foundation, study public policy, and conduct international development research at the University of Washington. This is my first year back.

You should do your thing when I'm judging. I start with the notion that we are "reasoning together," so unless otherwise directed, I expect argument and clash. I will flow the debate and structure my understanding of who won from that reference point.

I appreciate clever, creative strategies. I also like smart, coherent, and decisive storytelling with an awareness of how different parts of the debate fit together. I dare you to be bold. I like it when debaters listen to their opponents' evidence and tell me what it says; I like it when you quote from your own evidence to draw important distinctions. I like great cards. Seriously, I want to geek out over how great your evidence is. Show me, don't tell me.

I'm not uniformly familiar with the critical literature base of academic debate. I'm impressed by debaters who can explain these arguments unscripted.

I'm also impressed by fast, efficient, and (almost) invisible transfer of speech documents. It seems like email is best. If so, add me please: westside.jzo@gmail.com.

Finally, remember that we choose to spend our time doing this. Let’s enjoy the ride.

****Updated 3/17/17

Check out this Tumblr blog: http://tinyurl.com/debatememes - its amazing and needs more followers. It has sick debate and philosophy memes.

Prep time:  Open CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES count as prep.

Novice CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES NOT count as prep. (As long as you are reasonable with the time you are taking

Out Rounds – I will likely defer to the other judges opinions

I would suggest you use the USB button it automatically saves the doc to a flash drive connected to the computer. The button is right next to the timer app.  I pay attention during the time in between cx ending and your speech starting. If you are talking to your partner at this time and it isn't obviously about something other than your speech, I will start running the timer on you. Stealing prep is a pet peeve of mine and if I notice you doing it, it will likely reflect in your speaker points. I am more lenient on this for novice, but I still notice it. TL;DR - Don’t steal prep

Tag team in CX is fine, but keep it to a minimum. A question or two doesn’t hurt, but whoever’s CX it is should be speaking for a majority of the time. I am harder on novice teams for this than open teams.

My experience: I have been doing policy debate for 5 years and am currently in my second year as a member of the University of Washington debate union. I also have experience judging all other forms of debate, but policy debate is my specialty, as it is the superior debate form.

General thoughts:

I have done some minimal amounts of research on the high school topic, and I am now starting to get used to what debates look like. I don’t know all the affs on the topic, so be sure to completely explain your aff case and how it functions. This means that at some point earlier in the debate (by the end of the 2AC) you need to make sure I understand what your case does. Also, I believe in tech over truth in debates, and unless I am convinced otherwise, arguments must be present throughout the debate round for me to vote on them out of the final rebuttals. I also believe that the only real rule in debate is that there is some kind of speech time limit and prep time limit, and that in order to receive speaker points each debater on a team should speak. Otherwise it is your responsibility as debaters to tell me how debate should function in your speeches. If I am not given a way to weigh the round, this is how I default:

Speed – I debate with people that are much faster than you. Go as fast as your little heart will let you go, but if you are not clear I will say clear once, and if you aren’t clear after that I simply will not flow what you are saying. Disclosure – yes in open, maybe in novice. In novice it depends on what round it is and if the teams want disclosure.

Cross-x – I consider cross-x to be a kind of speech. While no arguments that are made here go on the flow, you can extend arguments you make in CX into your immediate next speech. Flex prep – totally okay to ask questions, but the other team doesn’t have an obligation to answer the questions

K’s - No K is too out there for me, but what is important is that you explain the impact and alternative and link VERY well. While I am familiar with most kritiks, if you do not explain the K well enough that I can understand it, especially the alternative, then I cannot vote on it unless it goes completely dropped. Part of tech over truth applies here. While that statement is true to me, part of tech for me is a warranted explanation of why they link, why there is an impact, and how your alternative solves this. I ran D&G my senior year of high school, and in one round I ran the Mao K, so really, no K is too out there for me. K bias – I have found myself voting for “cede the political” arguments a lot, but that is less because I super believe the argument and more because often K teams don’t articulate any kind of answer to cede the political

K v K debating – these can be strange simply because you sometimes touch on issues I care a lot about, I try and keep my biases out of these debates, but please be sure to clearly explain your impact and your solvency in relation to the other kritik, giving me a clear reason to vote for you is key to getting my ballot in these debates

T – I like T debates, I am very tech over truth here. In order to win T you must be able to prove why excluding their aff and/or why your interpretation is uniquely key for debate. I prefer limits and grounds arguments, but education and other impacts can be winners. Just make sure you explain which T impact is the most important and why. I can vote for RVI’s, but it is a steep uphill climb.

Theory – I have never voted on theory as a reason to reject the team except for one time on conditionality, and I voted there because it was a dropped argument. You have a steep uphill climb to convince me that a team running one kind of argument is enough for them to lose. That said, reject the argument is something I could vote on all the time. As long as you execute theory correctly, it is totally possible to convince me. The only exception to this rule is when the other team does something especially abusive, like being in novice and not running a novice aff or not following tournament rules in open. That said, it just being a "rule" isn't enough to convince me that you should win the round because they broke the rule, you also have to prove either that having rules is good or that the rule itself is good. If you have any questions on this please ask before the round.

FW – I think framework discusses the rules of debate and is therefore an important part of debate. That said, I do have one bias. I tend to have a hard time voting for frameworks that exclude certain types of arguments from debate. That said, it is totally a winnable argument, just know that if no framework argument is made I default to all arguments are legit and I weigh all impacts against each other.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts!

I apologize for the inconsistent fonts, but I am not getting paid enough to fix it.

Contact information: tautek@uw.edu

Feel free to contact me in the halls after a debate or by emailing me there. I am always happy and willing to help debaters, and can also email you or your coaches specific notes on your debating if you would like, just email me and request it. Emailing judges is a good way to get better at debate, and what do you know maybe I will give you some files if they are relevant ;)

The gamble – if you make any good puns during your speech, I will give you .1 speaker points for each one. However, if you make any bad puns or over used puns, I will take away .1 speaker points. Hint: Don't use the word "pun" as a pun.

I'm Sarah, I did CX for 3.5 years in high school, 2 years in college at JMU doing NDT/CEDA, and then just under 2 years of NPDA at Western Washington University ending as a semifinalist with my partner in 2020. I've been coaching middle school and high school parli for the last 4ish years.

Prefs-

Now that we're back to in-person tournaments, please feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round starts if there's anything I can clarify.

this is still a work in progress

On the K-
I'm most familiar with MLM, however I can keep up with and evaluate most everything. I know the framework tricks, if you know how to use them. I have a high threshold for links of omission. I default aff doesn't get to weigh the aff against the K, unless told otherwise. I see role of the ballot arguments as an independent framing claim to frame out offense. I default to perms as tests of competitions, and not as independent advocacies. For K affs-you don't need to have topic harms if your framework has sufficient reasons to reject the res, but from my experience running nontopical affs I find it more strategic if you do have specific justifications to reject the res (I guess that distinction is more relevant for parli).

On theory-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, unless told otherwise. I have kind of a high threshold for reasonability, especially when neg teams have racist/incorrect interpretations of how debate history has occurred in order to justify reactionary positions. If you have me judging parli-I default to drop the debater; and if you have me judging policy/LD-I default to drop the argument. I default to text of the interp. Parli specific: (if no weighing, do I default to LOC or MG theory? I'll come back and answer this). I don't default to fairness and education as voters, if you just read standards, then I don't have a way to externally weigh the work you're doing on that flow. I default theory apriori, but I have a relatively low threshold for arguments to evaluate other layers of the flow first. I default to "we meet" arguments working similarly to link arguments, the negative can still theoretically win risk of a violation, especially under competing interps. For disclosure arguments-I have a very high threshold for voting on this argument in parli, given that it's nearly non-verifiable. For other formats, I think disclosure and the wiki are good norms. In general, admittedly I have a high threshold for voting on t-framework.

General/case stuff-
Case-CPs don't get to kick out of particular planks of their CP in the block, if there are multiple. I default to no judge-kick. Given no work done in the round, uniqueness matters more than impacts. Fiat is durable.

I default to impact weighing in this order if no work is done in the round: probability, magnitude, timeframe.

If I am judging you in an event that you read evidence in the round-if there's card-clipping, it's likely to be an auto-drop. If you misconstrue evidence, I won't intervene but I'll have a low threshold for voting on it if the other team brings it up.